Written 5/8/2024- updates attached below

I tried posting this on kendrick almost a week ago and it got no response, I messaged the mods to ask about Karma restrictions or account age requirements and they never replied. I made a new account and it was the same issue, but I found out last night I wasn’t fully banned, so I figured I’d throw it up and see if anyone finds it valuable. It’s written for people who have no prior knowledge of the rap game/music business. I don’t have to go as hard on obscuring names this time. One of the influencers I mentioned in my last post is known for doxxing and threatening violence against people who mention the many contradictions in their stories. (Sorry for any typos/mistakes I want to go to bed.)
Origins
I believe the current Drake and Kendrick Lamar beef is either completely or partially fabricated by certain industry leaders or the parties involved in an effort to distract from something bigger going down behind the scenes. If you were an influential label owner facing major accusations, and you needed to deflect media attention from yourself, recreating one of the most defining moments in rap history during the social media era would be a way to do it. It also wouldn’t hurt that two of the biggest rappers in the world were already sending shots at each other in their music for years prior. The public consensus is they are simply two famous rappers who hate each other and fighting over the spot for the top like in the 90’s. Only people who were directly involved could paint a more cohesive picture of the whole story. Even when all the cards drop, there is a good chance the average person won’t be able to find direct sources on their own and will continue to support their favorite artists and dismiss any evidence of their crimes like the drizzy subreddit or Ak fans.

As I said the beef between Kendrick and Drake has been brewing in the background for years, with both rappers sending shots and sneak dissing each other over the course of at least 8 years. The most agreed upon origin story is the first diss was the 2016 Big Sean and Kendrick collaboration, “Control,” and Drake responded with, “The Language”. Things stayed relatively lighthearted for a while and both were intentionally vague for many years. Before I go deep into the Kendrick and Drake stuff, it’s really important to examine some of Drake’s prior beefs because they add a ton of context to my theory. In my opinion Kendrick and Co. started scheming all of this some time around Mid 2020-Mid 2022, well after the whole Pusha T beef had transitioned into the Kanye beef.

What exactly started the beef is debatable, but at the time many attributed it to rumors of Drake pursuing Ye’s ex Amber Rose. Unfortunately the timeline isn’t 100 percent clear, and if I included every detail this would be at least 200+ pages so I’ll stick with the important stuff. The ultimate outcome of the Pusha T battle in 2018 was the revelation of Drake’s son Adidon that he had previously been hiding from the world along with getting Ye directly involved in the beef.

Here are some more examples of Drake antagonizing Ye and of him trying to use women as pawns to get material for his diss tracks. The Drake line, “Yeah, I probably go link to Yeezy, I need me some Jesus, but as soon as I start confessin' my sins, he wouldn't believe us," could be a reference to sleeping with Kim Kardashian, trying to double down on his threats to harm him or his family, or it could be a double entendre. Another example is using the name Kiki in another song, which was apparently one of Kim’s nicknames. Some other possible examples include the theories he may have tried the same thing with Kendrick’s wife Whitney around 2020-2021 in an attempt to use as ammo against Kendrick, which I’ll go into later. I don’t listen to much of either artist's music, but there are probably many of other examples in Drake’s catalogue that I’m leaving out. There is also his song Omerta released in 2019, which I'll go into below.

“Your baby mother call me when she lonely My tailor see me twice a week, he like my homie Forever grateful, forever thankful Diamond necklace, but she wears it on her ankle”

(Probably referring to Kim Kardashian since she had a few pictures with her wearing diamond ankle bracelets and was trying to make it into a trend.

“I plan to buy your most personal belongings when they up for auction”

(There were various rumors floating around for a while that Drake was blackmailing Ye with something and he was fighting to keep it from the public. I thought about it and this line might be referencing a sex tape with Kim or her little sister who me was very touch before she turned 18. In 2022 there was a whole storyline on Kim’s show where Ye flies to LA to prevent her second sex tape from being released.)

West Hollywood, know my presence is menacing
Cosa Nostra, shady dealings
Racketeering, the syndicate got they hand in plenty things The things that we've done to protect the name are unsettling But no regrets, though, the name'll echo Years later, none greater
Death to a coward and a traitor, that's just in my nature, yeah
(Drake and Ye both frequented the Delilah Nightclub located in West Hollywood and lived closeby on the same street for a while.)
"I don't carry cash 'cause the money is digital
It's the American Expresser, the debt collector"

(Sounds a lot more like it could be crypto to launder or send large amounts of ill gotten gains. It started becoming mainstream around them)

"Last year, niggas really feel like they rode on me
Last year, niggas got hot 'cause they told on me
I'm 'bout to call the bluff of anybody the fold on me"

These lines stood out because they could be referring to Ye telling the public about Drake's alleged threats a couple months before the songs release. This happened not long after the release of Sicko mode which was towards the end of 2018 as well. Ye was discussing the incident on Twitter and reached out to Drake and Travis to talk to him in private. In the next set of tweets Kanye publicly accused Drake of threatening him and his family in a major way. Surprisingly Ye seemed genuinely scared and amongst his, “crazy rants,” some of the stuff he said makes a ton of sense in hindsight. This also the beginning of his second serious public struggles with Bipolar disorder after being committed in 2016 shortly after an on stage rant where he calls out Jay Z for selling out and says he's afraid he might kill him.. As someone who shares the same diagnosis, I have a pretty good understanding of mania and psychosis and firmly believe that it's important not to write people off right away due to their mental illness. Some of my most thoughtful, creative, and productive periods were inspired by mania. Industry bigwigs have also been using mental illness to discredit influential black celebrities and visionaries going back decades, but it really picked up in the 80’s.

Dave Chappelle has gone into this a lot in the past and claims he experienced something similar before he quit show business and dipped to Africa. Their stories have a lot of interesting parallels if you’re familiar or curious. I remember he actually visited Ye at his house in Wyoming after he was reported to have had a, "mental breakdown," during his presidential run in 2020 thus marking his third breakown in six years.. The reason I put it in quotes is because it happened right after he publicly accused Kim of cheating and delivered his legendary speech on abortion. Dave went as far as going on live tv and telling the public he wasn’t crazy, he was just really struggling because he was the only one at the time fighting against the narrative, which can often be a suicide mission or a ticket to obscurity. These are three examples of someone speaking up and being deemed crazy, two years later came the nazi stuff and I'm sure we'll have plenty in store for 2024.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the very common pattern of artists dying or having their careers destroyed either after they try to leave their label or threaten to reveal industry secrets. A few more interesting industry connections I made in my research include the connections between:

T.U.G. records and J Cole's independent label Dreamville are both managed by Interscope Records, whose parent company is Universal Music Group.

Universal Music Group also hac Drake's label OvO label as well as Ye and Kendrick's old labels on their roster before they left to form their own independent labels in 2022 (around the same time the disses between Kendrick and Drake started escalating). Finally Bad Boy Records, which is owned by Diddy, and Motown Records who own Diddy's other R&B label Love Records, are also both owned by Universal. This means every label I mention is currently or was previously owned by Universal Music Group.

Ye tried for years to get out of his contract with Defjam, which happens to be ran by Jay Z who is known to be a close associate of Diddy. Jay would always used his money and power to fight against it. Ye even spoke out publicly on a few occasions, including when he said Jay Z was trying to kill him during one of his concerts. My theory is after years of getting nowhere and having his reputation skewered, in 2022 Ye finally said, "Fuck it," and dropped all the anti- Semetic stuff intentionally in a successful attempt to force his label to into using their morality clause, which requires labels to drop an artist if they're accused of any major controversy that could hurt the label’s profits. For the fourth time in four years the media reported he was having a breakdown. Even though they tried to punish him by cutting off all of his sources of income and freezing his accounts he still managed to bounce back pretty quickly. It was often reported how much he was losing, but it rarely discussed how he still was filthy rich in spite of the retrictions. His label wanted to discourage other artists from trying the same thing. My theory is he might have bought Kim or Kylie's alleged sex tape and used it for his own leverage. For Kendrick, his transition to his independent label ApLang went a lot smoother, but he had to split ownership of his new label with the previous manager owner Dave Free. Sadly it's still difficult for new or more niche artists to establish themselves without the some help.

He may be a lot of things but Ye isn’t dumb just because he has a mood disorder and the guys at the top know this, which is why I think he has really played up his diagnosis when it benefitted him. He’s still one of the most talented musicians in the game and I really think he sees his bipolar like a superpower as he says. It’s like his own invisibility cloak. He can go off his meds for a little, make an album after staying up for 72 hours, go on a “psychotic” twitter rant dropping facts throughout, then start up again once he makes enough news headlines. I think it’s worth noting the first divorce rumors in 2020 coincided with Ye’s abortion speech during his presidential run and the cheating accusations. that led to him dropping out and moving to Wyoming, and a couple months ago in February 2024 he was committed again.

The point I’m making is bipolar is complex, but pretty manageable especially if you have a ton of money to find meds that work for you and a good doctor and can keep substance abuse and stress at a manageable level. I think Ye is smart enough to know this, but it’s just safer for him to really play up the mental issues in the media. He’s proven he can literally say whatever he wants after getting cancelled and the average person is just going to write it off as psycho babble. While bias in health care is a sad fact of society, if you can use it to your advantage I say go for it. It might’ve just kept the microscope off of him long enough to plan his attack.

Ye v. Drake: Quotes of 2018
(Start of the beef, drake threats, and suspicion towards Kardashian family. )

“ It’s not about rap. It’s about family. We have to be close as a family and never let these people infiltrate just for radio spins”

“We need to show the world that people can talk without people ending up dead or in jail.”

”This is a man speaking to a man that has been placed in the program to fuck with Kanye West head and set me up“

”See when you care about your family you don’t let no man push you to do nothing that could risk your freedom“

These first four tweets by Ye were all in reference to perceived threats made by Drake after their beef escalated circa 2018. He began speaking on the industry and talking more about his psych hospital commitment two years prior and how he thought they were going to kill him. It's pretty obvious how the whole thing was planned by the sketchy doctor who called it in and his physical trainer who has a ton of connections to weird shit involving his celebrity clients.

I found interesting that Ye might not have been the first major league rapper whose life Drake threatened. During a similar period of mental illness the up and coming rapper XXXtentacion accused Drake of stealing his flow and dissed him a few times. Not long after he made a post online saying if he dies, it was Drake who did it. There are tons of conspiracies online, but none of the evidence is strong enough to draw a definitive connection. Also while it maybe be coincidental, Kendrick’s latest album Mr Morale also painted the picture that Kendrick was dealing with some serious personal issues. Some lines throughout the album may have been used to bait Drake into escalating, but it wasn’t until The Weekend, Future, and Metro Booming dropped, “We Don’t Trust You,” then Drake and J. Cole dropped, “First Person Shooter,” which was followed a couple days later with, “Like That,” where Kendrick started the chain of events that has led us to today.

Kanye vs. Drake: Quotes of 2020

Summary: Ye runs for president and gets suppressed for saying what very well could be the truth and was immediately deemed insane by the media. Kim did a couple interviews and everything he said was immediatly false. There is almost guarenteed to be some sketchy shit going down revolving her and her family. Ye was absolutely terrified of her keeping the kids away from him and it seems like there are still efforts being made to this day to paint a certain image of him for ulterior motives.

Below are six more quotes from a fan taking a deep dive into his 2020 tweets courtesy of u/ thehatstore42069 on Yeezy
”NORTHY I AM GOING TO WAR AND PUTTING MY LIFE ON THE LINE AND IF I AM MURDERED DON’T EVER LET WHITE MEDIA TELL YOU I WASNT A GOOD MAN,” West, 43, wrote in the tweet, adding, “WHEN PEOPLE THREATEN TO TAKE YOU OUT OF MY LIFE JUST KNOW I LOVE YOU”

"I need a public apology from J Cole and Drake to start with immediately... I'm Nat Turner... I'm fighting for us."

"the utmost respect for all brothers" and said "we need to link and respect each other... no more dissing each other on labels we don't own"

"Ye is constantly trying to tell people that his family does not have his or his kids best interests at heart. He goes on to list others, linking them together with the thinking emoji. These people include rap artist Drake and Larsa Pippen, wife of Scottie Pippe. Kim K is goddaughter to Pippen's daughter, showing how close the families actually are. All of these families that associate with Ye through Kardashian connections, as well as Drake, have been accused of the same thing Kris has. EVERY SINGLE ONE of these people have mixed race children that are groomed from a young age to fuck around with celebrities so the parents can remain famous. Drake on numerous occasions has been accused of grooming girls and then getting handsy on their 18th birthday.”

“These labels want their artists to make them money and they dont care about anything else. When Kanye says things like this in an attempt to expose him, the first thing they wanna do is drug him up and put him back in the studio.”
“Righteous indignation is typically a reactive emotion of anger over mistreatment, insult, or malice of another. It is akin to what is called the sense of injustice. This is how they keep the black man down. Keep people outraged about trivial things and distract them from the real issues in the world. The real problems in the industry. If you tell people enough times that they are unequal or discriminated against they start to believe it. Drug them when they step out of line and toss them aside when the checks run out. Ye is realizing he is pawn in a bigger game, and now that he has all these roots in the game such as Yeezy or the Gap or his music, too many people cant risk (Afford) a Ye who speaks his mind.”
(End of quotes)

Amongst the twitter rant, Ye warned about the predatory nature of record deals and discussed trying to get out of his own deal, and said again how his life may be in danger if it wasn’t already and was doing anything he could to protect his kids. The most fascinating part to me though is the public call to arms he made to Drake, J Cole, and Kendrick on twitter. After inviting them to all link up, he said, “It’s time to get free, we will not argue amongst each other while some guy we don’t know in Europe is getting paid and putting that money in a hedge fund.” I believe if Ye was able to pull off this meeting, there is an ever so slight chance that all four artists might be working together to take down a greater enemy. Weirdly there have been times throughout the last couple years where these supposed enemies were photographed together being friendly or praise each other in interviews, then out of no where the disses would start flying again.

To wrap things up I want to share my a few of my theories about the Drake/Kanye beef

A. Everything is exactly as it seems and the beef is over. Ye let his mental illness ruin his life and career so Drake simply picked another target after Ye stopped putting out disses. All of these connections are just a coincidence and all of this was choreographed to boost Drake and Kendrick’s music sales and possibly distract people from the Diddy trial and possibly the complicated geopolitical issues currently facing the U.S.

C. There is also the possibility that all four rappers are in cahoots and Drake’s dirt isn’t as extreme as people are theorizing, at least in comparison to the rest of the business. This could explain why everything has played out like a movie and how they were able to predict each other’s moves so well. This could either mean they’re all just trying to boost their sales or they’re all trying to take down the “slave masters,” as Ye calls them, and change the dynamic of the music industry in favor of the artist.

D. They may be trying to help their friends in the industry who are being abused or in shitty contracts. I know a lot of famous rappers have done a lot of collaborations with Jhene Aiko and Anderson Paak, who were both signed to T.U.G. records which I mentioned above in the connections to Universal Music Group. Considering they are both frequent collaborators with all of the artists involved on both sides, it’s not unlikely they may have played some part in influencing the takedown.

T.U.G was started by Chris Stokes with his partner Ketrina Askew. Back in the early to mid 90’s were gaining popularity attracting lots of young up and coming talent. They often collaborated with Diddy and his associates. In the 2000’s Raz B from the boy band B2K claimed he was molested by Stokes and his friend Marques Houston, then quickly retracted his claims. Years later he came forward again and said we was bribed into silence and that the rest of the victims were bribed with hush money and had another singer corroborate his story and they came forward together to level the accusations. After some of his former B2K members made fun of him for his claims and accused it of being a shakedown, Raz B revealed Stokes and Houston had preyed a lot of the children associated with the label including at least one of the former bandmates and paid them off.

I thought it was worth noting that the second whistleblower named Quindon Tarver died young in a car crash after mentioning his abuse again a few years prior. He seems to have left the industry not long after the incidents occurred and has few credits to his name. To this day Raz B is still trying to get his justice, while Stokes and his partner Askew, who was also involved in the abuse are still running the label to this day. Askew also has a ton of lawsuits, accusing her of using shady tactics to try to foreclose on houses. (Don’t quote me if a lawyer wants to take a look just google her full name), and has been tied to a ton of LLCs, similar to Drake. This is a good example of a shitty record deal, but I'm sure they have countless other friends in the industry who have even worse. While they were never convicted even Chris Stokes' wife confirmed it to be true.

E. The theory I personally think fits the narrative best and is the most realistic conspiracy is that Kendrick and possibly J. Cole went to the meeting, but not Drake due to his close relationship with Lucian Grange, the president of Drake’s label. Silence often speaks louder than words and this could explain why Kendrick was so ruthless and put so much effort into finding dirt on Drake. Ye, Cole, and Kendrick co-writing would be like the rap allstar team and if J. Cole wasn’t involved, it would also answer the question of whether or not he baited Drake into the battle by asking him to feature. I don’t think Drake is really their primary target though, which would explain letting him off easy. Compared to his bosses and their bosses he’s a small fish. If you take the big guys down you stand a better chance of landing a bigger blow on their operation.

Another really interesting connection is Kendrick and Ye were both signed under Universal Music Group and they both got out of their deals around couple months apart in 2022. As we speak U.M.G’s CEO Lucian Grange, who is often acccused of giving Drake special treatment, is facing charges related to sex trafficking by no other than P Diddy. This could very well explain the timing of it all. The craziest timeline would be Diddy masterminding all of this and using his connections to get it done and all the allegations are bullshit. The guy does seem pretty confident all things considered and constantly posts himself in his Batman costume which could mean he’s a vigilante.

It seems like there's a slight religious angle as well. (Ye and Diddy are both very vocal advocates of Christianity and Drake and Lucian Grange are both Jewish.) Obviously this is a reach, but they’ve been saying rap music was specifically promoted by mostly white label owners in the 80’s to help in the ongoing effort to expedite the systematic oppression of those living in black neighborhoods and the destruction of their family systems. Apparently it was an intentional decision to heavily promote rap that promoted the very things that were destroying their neighborhoods.

*** If my favorite theory is true, there is a possibility the Kendrick and Ye are going after Drake due to their mutual disdain for him and because he’s got a ton of power to dominate the charts and hog the radio airtime like Meek Mill and OG Maco claimed years ago. Even him dropping a record the same day as you could really fuck your album sales up. I’m also sure some of the many rumors throughout the years have had a least some truth and he will most likely snitch to avoid cell block one. I think that Drake could have been instructed to instigate this whole mess in order to draw attention away from the UMG charges brought about by Diddy. Or on the other hand it could be that Kendrick, Ye, and possibly Cole, may have had intel that Drake was going to be involved in the Diddy trial and are just gonna let the receipts show themselves. It might not have been the original plan, but they’ve already accomplished their mission of humiliating him, assuring he couldn’t use his influence to slide through the cracks, and taking over the throne.

Please take everything I say with a grain of salt I have no connection to this world or lifestyle. Regardless I believe all of the knowledge above does a pretty solid job at painting a picture of what may have let up to this and what may have been the source.
——————————-
More details found the last couple days…

Drake and Diddy Connections+Coincidences

Drake- In the P Diddy wig video from 2016 he talks about going to party with Drake, Cash, and The Weeknd in Toronto. Drake is also one of Birdman’s protégées who is known for being a predator and is rumored to have used label artists to lure young women.

Travis Scott- Interview where he comes out and says Diddy tried to lure him. Still has a long history of associating with him, video of him running from Diddy, his connection to Ruby Rose while underage.

Tim Westwood- Diddy had connections with sex offender Tim Westwood who also inspired the Drake song, “Westwood”. They also both were victims of drive by shootings along with The Weekend and they were all facing some type of allegations.

T.I.- Also has been associate with Diddy through the years, in 2021 his kid died and 11 women can forward at the same time to accuse him and his wife of drugging and assaulting them. Clearly someone wanted to fuck his life up. Possibly due to him getting arrested so many times for wild shit and people wondering how he continued to get away with it shining a light on how powerful industry lawyers are. He also had recently talked about having a gynecologist check to see if his daughter is still a Virgin, which sounds like it could have been an industrty secret. Could have been because he worried about someone trying to take advantage of her to get to him? Regardless that shit is fucking insane.

50 Cent- Has been saying pretty much the same thing as Travis Scott and has trolled Diddy for most of his career. It came out that his wife was a sex worker who was possibly recruited Diddy to help ruin his career. It sort of worked, which raises the question if 50 Cent is the only victim.

Ray J- Him and his sister worked with T.U.G. records when they were very young. Chris Stokes in the nineties who had connections with Diddy. He has been involved in a lot of sex scandals and allegedly may have played a part in Whitney Houston's death. (Which is also allegedly connected to Michael Jackson's death and both were deemed suspicious and happened during their final tours when their masters (song rights), became more valuable than their lives. Sony Records and Tommy Motolla, who also abused Mariah Carey when she was trying to start her career. These are just a few of the alleged examples of labels taking out musicians when they were worth more dead, another is the signing of high risk artists and requiring them to get life insurance so they can profit beyond releasing all their posthumous records. Also the ever so common story of the rising star artist that die at 21 after their first album or two.

He also partied with Diddy in Vegas with along Floyd Mayweather and a bunch of other famous industry people and athletes.

Tory Lanez- Tons of blackmail, also was signed by Interscope under UMG. got sent to prison for ten years after trying to leave his label. Also history of SA and and other allegations of violence towards women.

French Montana- On Diddy's label, close with Rick and Khaled, tons of drug and sexual assault allegations, also dated a Kardashian. Generally grimy.

DJ Khaled- Diddy said he could get anything in Miami, either referring to drugs or women, could explain his connections and lack of any notable talent. (New update, he was one of the first to promote Chris Alvarez’s instagram not long after he turned 18).

Rick Ross- Diddy said some weird shit about him and licked his lips and kissed him at a show. Ross is also signed to Bad Boy under Diddy. He ended up getting involved in the current feud and spamming social media nonstop dissing and threatening Drake.

A lot of the back and forth was both of them threatening to release dirt on each other. One strange coincidence I found was Drake recently trolled Ross about the 20 million dollar renovation to his home on Star island, where Diddy is currently residing. It’s rumored back in the day that P Diddy was caught in a room full of rich guys on ecstasy possibly at the beginning stages of a gay orgy. Drake also mentioned in the same tweets about Rick Ross that Birdman owned a house on the island and asked Rick Ross why he didn’t help him out.

Considering Ross is so sketchy and Drake claims the house isn’t that big, that’s a ridiculous amount of money. He may be covering up evidence, or creating tunnels in his house to escape if shit pops off and Drake might know what’s good. Interestingly enough Ross is very close with French Montana and also signed to Bad. He said his beef was related to something involving French, and Drake’s tweet popped up the same day the info came out concerning the Chris Alvarez stuff.

The famous line from U.O.E.N.O.

Meek Mill- “OG Maco called himself defending his friend Quentin Miller by substantiating the ghostwriting claims and agreeing with Meek. He hit up Twitter saying, "Some of us been knew. Meek just put it in the air. Sucks to have to compete with 6 n****s and get compared to”

Meek mill also had a short beef with Drake, some disses included lines referring to TI’s homie pissing on Drake at the movie theater, which is also interesting considering the current case against him. He also dropped a line saying Diddy almost got a domestic charge when he smacked Drake, which could either be saying that Drake is like a woman, or saying he was Drake’s boyfriend/sugar daddy.

I thought it was interesting how the beef just kind of disappeared and even Meek said it didn’t seem genuine. Considering the allegations against Meek in the Diddy trial, and his rumored affair with Kim contributing to ending Kanye’s marriage, Meek Mill definitely did some dirt on him.

“Niggas frauds I told the truth, don't ask me shit
All this industry fake enemy and rap shit”

“Money make a sucker that told look trill again”

One of the many chapters in Drake's history in which he is seen paying his way out of trouble and starting beefs randomly.
“Now when that shit went down with Chris, you wrote a check”
This line is referring to Chris brown beef, another beef that was lost to time. All I can remember off the top was someone throwing a champagne bottle at the other’s entourage.

Ty Dolla $ign- Huge feature artist, close with Ye. Grew up in the industry and talks about growing up on the road and being in the studio with his dad and Rick James who was should have already been in prison for life for dragging, torturing, and S assaulting multiple women and children throughout his career and was himself a victim of the industry. May be part of Ye's motivation, considering their recent close working relationship. (If you made it to the end comment with the number 8)
The end.
Courtesy of,
The Randomest Moniker

I have a small business - 2 person, never going to make me rich, but I get to do the work in a way that is meaningful to me - that I need a cooling solution for. Second story of a mixed use commercial complex with a sloped roof. I was just given a quote for $34k to install a single zone mini split AC. I was expecting more of the $13-17k range. This is in the California Bay Area, near but not in silicon valley

Inclusions: Provide and install (1) 3 ton mini split system, Including :
Wall Mounted Fan Coil
Roof Mounted Condenser and support pad.
DX Refrigerant Piping
Wall Mounted programmable thermostat.
• Condensate pump and piping to closest drain.
• Electrical circuit from existing panel to equipment. Budget, a sight visit will be required to
confirm capacity.
• Rigging
• Start and test system.

And exclusions:

Overtime.
• Fire life safety system, fire life safety wire, Fire dampers and sprinklers.
• Permit and plan check fees.
• Structural engineering, Structural calculations and permit set drawings for
Owner and city review.
• Structural support or modifications.
• Line Voltage Electrical.
• Plumbing / condensate piping.
• DDC controls.
• Roof Screen.
• Architectural and wall work.
Cutting, patching or painting.
• Ceiling repair.
• Duct pressure or leak testing, Duct cleaning and Sound Testing.
• Performance of existing equipment andsystems.
• Warranty, repair or replacement of existing equipment.
• Decontamination and disposal or handling of hazardous materials or wastes.
• LEED or Third party commissioning and or documentation.
• Any work not mentioned above.

It also mentions that the project will require a roofing contractor, whose costs aren't included in this bid.
I've asked around, and the residential version of this install seems to have cost about $7-10k within the last 2-3 years.
Why is this bid so much higher? Is this a brush-off "happy price" bid or is this realistic? The person who I asked to review it (used to work in real estate so knows what bids are supposed to look like) said this was vague, had a longer list of exclusions than inclusions, some of which should have been included, and missing a bunch of details. Are commercial installs really 3-4x more expensive than residential? The leasing agent and/or property manager is the one who solicited this bid for me, so I'm wondering if that may have made a difference and they thought deeper pockets could afford it. Or, I could be just totally out of touch.
Thoughts from people who know how much this stuff actually costs would be much appreciated.
And yes, as a service providing business owner, I know that things cost what they cost, and good work doesn't come cheap, and I respect that the HVAC employees are skilled tradesmen and I value their expertise. This is just out of my wheelhouse and I want to know if that's a "go away" bid or a real one.

I guess what I mean is. Would it count as fair use if I quote or make a reference to other works, say, Shakespeare, T.S. Eliot, Rainer Maria Rilke, Kate Chopin, Oscar Wilde...y'know. no one alive right now. Or would I still have to ask for permission for every single one? And if so, how?
It's not something I can simply avoid mentioning in the story either because one of the main characters is an english professor so. that's kind of his thing.
And as for songs, can you mention the name of a song? Or use a lyric? Not the entire song but like, a line and such.

Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is the episode summary:
Benjamin Moser is a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer celebrated for his in-depth studies of literary and cultural figures such as Susan Sontag and Clarice Lispector. His latest book, which details a twenty-year love affair with the Dutch masters, is one of Tyler’s favorite books on art criticism ever.
Benjamin joined Tyler to discuss why Vermeer was almost forgotten, how Rembrandt was so productive, what auctions of the old masters reveals about current approaches to painting, why Dutch art hangs best in houses, what makes the Kunstmuseum in the Hague so special, why Dutch students won’t read older books, Benjamin’s favorite Dutch movie, the tensions within Dutch social tolerance, the joys of living in Utrecht, why Latin Americans make for harder interview subjects, whether Brasilia works as a city, why modernism persisted in Brazil, how to appreciate Clarice Lispector, Susan Sontag’s (waning) influence, V.S. Naipaul’s mentorship, Houston’s intellectual culture, what he’s learning next, and more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: You once wrote about Susan Sontag, and I quote, “So much of Sontag’s best work concerns the ways we try, and fail, to see.” Please explain.
MOSER: This is what On Photography is about. This is what Against Interpretation is about in Sontag’s work. Of course, in my new book, The Upside-Down World, I talk about how I’m not really great at seeing, particularly. I’m not that visual. I’m a reader. I’m a bookworm. Often, when I’ve looked at paintings, I’ve realized how little I actually see. Sometimes I do feel embarrassed by it. You’ll read the label and it’ll be three sentences, and it’ll say like, A Man with a Dog. You’re like, “Oh, I didn’t even see the dog.” You know what I mean?
On these very basic levels, I just think, “Oh, if someone doesn’t point it out to me, I really don’t see.” I think that that was one of the fascinating things about Sontag, that she was not really able to see. She was actually quite terrible at seeing, and this was especially true in her relationships. She was very bad at seeing what other people were thinking and feeling.
I think because she was aware of that, she tried very hard to remedy it, but it’s just not something you can force. You can’t force yourself to like certain music or to like certain tastes that you might not actually like.
COWEN: What was Sontag most right about or most insightful about?
MOSER: I think this question of images — what images do — and photography and how representations, metaphors can pervert things. She had a very deep repulsion to photography. She really hated photography, and this is why a lot of photographers hated _her_ because they felt this, even though she didn’t really say it. She really didn’t trust it. She really thought it was wicked. At the same time, for somebody who had a deficit, I guess you could say, in seeing, she really relied on it to understand the world.
I think that tension is very instructive for us, because now, she already says 50 years ago, “There are all these images. We don’t know what to do with them. We don’t know how to process them.” Forget AI, forget Russian trolls on Twitter. She uses this word I really like, hygiene, a lot. She talks about mental hygiene and how you can clean the rusty pipes in your brain. That’s why I think reading her helped me at least to understand a lot of what I’m seeing in the world.
COWEN: Do you think she will simply end up forgotten?
Again, I am happy to recommend Benjamin’s latest book The Upside-Down World: Meetings with Dutch Masters.
The post My excellent Conversation with Benjamin Moser appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

Related Stories

• My Conversation with the excellent Coleman Hughes
• The Screwworm
• Alice Munro, RIP
  
  

Hi there! I am currently writing a research paper for my college sociology course and have a question regarding proper formatting for in text citation. If this isn't a good place to ask please let me know!
This is the quote I would like to insert into my paper:
“broadly concerns consumption… refers to the excessive over-consumption of consumer goods without regard to the negative impacts to people and the planet. It is an increasingly pervasive social paradigm”
I know that the in text citation for any other quote would be (Lister, 2016) as she is the author for the book. The issue is that the section of text I am quoting is already in-text cited in her book. By 4 different authors.
"Consumerism broadly concerns consumption. Specifically, it refers to the excessive over-consumption of consumer goods without regard to the negative impacts to people and the planet (Dauvergne 2008; Princen et al. 2002; Stearns 2006). It is an increasingly pervasive social paradigm and a major tenet of the global economy (Conca 2001)."
How do I go about citing this? I can think of multiple different ways to go about citing them but really would like some input!!

1. Just citing the author of the book

(Lister, 2016)

1. Cite it by using et al. Issue is since it is compiled from 5 different texts they all have different years so it stumps me a little

(Lister et al.)

1. Cite all 5 of the authors

(Conca 2001; Dauvergne 2008; Lister 2016; Princen et al. 2002; Stearns 2006)

1. Just give up and find another source that doesn't cite a million different texts on the exact paragraph I need (I can do this if needed but I really like how this one is worded

thanks so much in advance!!

Hi there! I am currently writing a research paper for my college sociology course and have a question regarding proper formatting for in text citation. If this isn't a good place to ask please let me know!
This is the quote I would like to insert into my paper:
“broadly concerns consumption… refers to the excessive over-consumption of consumer goods without regard to the negative impacts to people and the planet. It is an increasingly pervasive social paradigm”
I know that the in text citation for any other quote would be (Lister, 2016) as she is the author for the book. The issue is that the section of text I am quoting is already in-text cited in her book. By 4 different authors.
"Consumerism broadly concerns consumption. Specifically, it refers to the excessive over-consumption of consumer goods without regard to the negative impacts to people and the planet (Dauvergne 2008; Princen et al. 2002; Stearns 2006). It is an increasingly pervasive social paradigm and a major tenet of the global economy (Conca 2001)."
How do I go about citing this? I can think of multiple different ways to go about citing them but really would like some input!!

1. Just citing the author of the book

(Lister, 2016)

1. Cite it by using et al. Issue is since it is compiled from 5 different texts they all have different years so it stumps me a little

(Lister et al.)

1. Cite all 5 of the authors

(Conca 2001; Dauvergne 2008; Lister 2016; Princen et al. 2002; Stearns 2006)

1. Cite it as "in cited in" - Only concern I have is once again it feels like a lot of sources to cite for this

(Conca, 2001; Dauvergne, 2008; Princen et al., 2002; Stearns, 2006, as cited in Lister, 2016)

1. Just give up and find another source that doesn't cite a million different texts on the exact paragraph I need (I can do this if needed but I really like how this one is worded

thanks so much in advance!!

Hi there! I am currently writing a research paper for my college sociology course and have a question regarding proper formatting for in text citation. If this isn't a good place to ask please let me know!
This is the quote I would like to insert into my paper:
“broadly concerns consumption… refers to the excessive over-consumption of consumer goods without regard to the negative impacts to people and the planet. It is an increasingly pervasive social paradigm”
I know that the in text citation for any other quote would be (Lister, 2016) as she is the author for the book. The issue is that the section of text I am quoting is already in-text cited in her book. By 4 different authors.
"Consumerism broadly concerns consumption. Specifically, it refers to the excessive over-consumption of consumer goods without regard to the negative impacts to people and the planet (Dauvergne 2008; Princen et al. 2002; Stearns 2006). It is an increasingly pervasive social paradigm and a major tenet of the global economy (Conca 2001)."
How do I go about citing this? I can think of multiple different ways to go about citing them but really would like some input!!

1. Just citing the author of the book

(Lister, 2016)

1. Cite it by using et al. Issue is since it is compiled from 5 different texts they all have different years so it stumps me a little

(Lister et al.)

1. Cite all 5 of the authors

(Conca 2001; Dauvergne 2008; Lister 2016; Princen et al. 2002; Stearns 2006)

1. Just give up and find another source that doesn't cite a million different texts on the exact paragraph I need (I can do this if needed but I really like how this one is worded

thanks so much in advance!!

Shortly after *Final Fantasy VII* hit the gaming world in 1997, Cloud Strife’s howls of grief at the loss of his beloved companion Aerith Gainsborough were echoed by droves and droves of fans. These echoes gathered in swarms, reaching the developers in the form of petition signatures, each begging the makers of the game to allow Aerith’s resurrection. Though these prayers remained unanswered —until now—, there soon came more protests: this time, fans pleaded with the developers to consider making a remake of the original game. Both of these wishes were met with considerable derision, with large chunks of the fandom calling the requests delusional— which is why the Final Fantasy world had to prepare for another meteoric hit when the *Remake* project was finally announced in 2015. With Kitase, Nomura, Toriyama, Nojima, Uematsu and more of the original developers at the helm, along with longtime *FFVII* fan-turned-developer Hamaguchi, the *Remake* trilogy was met with great expectations. These were nevertheless surpassed, though one aspect of the trilogy’s first entry seemed to thoroughly puzzle some and enrage others. Far and wide, the resounding questions were “What are these Whisper things?”, “Why is Cloud having visions unrelated to Nibelheim and Zack?” and “Why and how in the hell did Zack survive?”
Friends, I believe the answer lies within this post. Welcome to my literary-analysis-based theory on the *Remake* trilogy’s most important and most secret plot point: Cloud’s hidden mission. I want to make this fun and suspenseful to read, so I will write my analyses in the same order and manner in which I encountered them while putting my theory together. You will be reading what initially sparked my curiosity, the path I took while researching for answers, the conclusions I made every step of the way, and only then will you read my theory, after which we’ll try and apply it to the *Remake* trilogy so far and see if it fits! I want you to experience the rollercoaster that I did when digging through SE content to bring you this post. Thank you so much for waiting for and anticipating this analysis, and I do hope you read every word to soak in every last bit of Clerith you can get. I also hope it’s really fun and touching for you (I cried at least once making this)! Let’s embark on our adventure through the compilation, other *FF* games and real-life events to find out what the *Remake* project is truly all about and anticipate the events of part 3.
N.B.: Please be aware that I have never seen this theory navigate online, so I have no idea if anyone has ever come up with a similar hypothesis. The big reveal I’m building toward might be something you’re already aware of or suspected. In that case, I hope this post doesn’t disappoint you if you’re one of the lovely people who requested it! At the very least, it will provide you with valuable literary and musical analysis, a ton of evidence you haven’t considered yet, and hopefully, entertainment too!
WARNING: Please be careful with the censored spoiler text, because I'll be referencing other *FF* games in this analysis and I don't want to ruin anything for you! Obviously, this analysis contains spoilers for the entirety of the *FFVII* compilation. Additionally, if you're not a fan of Clerith and you've stumbled upon this post, please stop here. I would hate it if something I worked on and posted made you angry, so please don't read this analysis. I have only good intentions and I just want everyone to enjoy the *FFVII* world as much as they can.
I. Groundwork: The Remake Timelines Theory
Before I take you on this ride, we must lay down the framework of the *Remake* Timelines Theory. In this section, we’ll be reviewing the general consensus of theorizers within the fandom on timeline/multiverse shenanigans, with some added specifications on my part. Please keep in mind that because the timeline mechanics are kept quite vague by the devs, there might be certain inaccuracies in my iteration of the timelines theory. Thankfully, these potential variances won’t have any effect on the legitimacy of the theory I’ll be presenting to you in this analysis.
I. a) Sephiroth’s Plan
The premise of the *Remake* trilogy is widely thought to be the result of post-OG Sephiroth attempting to succeed where he failed in OG. There are six key points we need to keep in mind to understand how this was possible.
I. a) i. Sephiroth in the Lifestream
Firstly, it’s important to remember that Sephiroth is dead and located in the Lifestream before OG even begins, and remains that way for almost all of OG's duration. He is only able to operate in the world of the living via his/Jenova's control over the living Sephiroth clones. In the OG timeline then, Sephiroth is sent to the Lifestream by Cloud twice: once before the game takes place on the night of the Nibelheim incident (pre-OG), and a second time during the final battle against Sephiroth (disk 3, chapter 3). During the long period between the Nibelheim incident and Sephiroth’s rebirth at the Northern Crater (disk 2, chapter 2), he exists in the Lifestream. After his ultimate defeat (post-OG), he returns there for good.
II. a) ii. Sephiroth Unintegrated
Secondly, because he is full of hatred and unyielding determination, Sephiroth’s spirit cannot become one with the planet. After both occasions where Cloud kills him in OG, Sephiroth retains his individual will and the memories of his lifetime, remaining a separate entity in the Lifestream. He says so himself in Nojima’s *Advent Children* prequel novel *On a Way to a Smile*:
“[Sephiroth] could sense the Lifestream trying to erode his spirit— the memories of his former experiences, thoughts and emotions. If he allowed himself be taken into the current, the being he once was would soon disseminate and disappear amongst the spirit energy cycling around the planet. [He] thought this unacceptable. The planet was to be his to rule, and to become a part of that system would be nothing short of defeat” (Lifestream Black 1).
Combined with Bugenhagen’s basic lesson on planetology (*FFVII* OG, disk 1, chapter 19), this excerpt provides interesting information on how the Lifestream normally works. Usually, when a life returns to the planet, its individuality (personality, will, consciousness, memories, etc.) is stripped away. The trappings of a soul’s former lifetime are progressively dissolved so that all that is left is the spirit itself, ready to integrate into the Lifestream. This way, soul energy can be “recycled” by the planet to animate new lifeforms in a sort of reincarnation process. The erasure of one’s memories in the Lifestream is necessary for the creation of a brand new life, poised to make its own memories: the slate must be wiped clean, so to speak. Sephiroth’s sheer hatred for and desire to dominate the planet is enough to keep him from undergoing this process.
It is also thought that Sephiroth cannot be integrated into the Lifestream because he was conceived with the use of Jenova cells in vitro. Given that so much of his consciousness and genetic makeup originate from an alien life force, it is impossible for him to become one with the planet.
Regardless of the reason, it is precisely this persisting individuality in death that allows Sephiroth to meddle in the world of the living during the post-OG events of *Advent Children*, as explained to us by post-OG Aerith in *On a Way to a Smile*:
“[Aerith] had sensed a different presence within the Lifestream cycling around the planet. It was the vehemence of a strong will, one that would never join with the planet. She knew this consciousness. It was [Sephiroth]. A merciless spirit hidden behind a beauteous wall. That spirit was now operating from within the Lifestream. [She] sensed that he was planning to exert his influence to the surface of the planet“ (Lifestream White 1).
I. a) iii. The Lifestream Beyond Time
Our third point is that the Lifestream has existed for as long as the planet, and has therefore touched every part of its history— including, of course, the events of OG. On that account, one could think of the Lifestream as atemporal. Considering this, it is possible for a spirit in the Lifestream to communicate with or even travel to the past, provided the necessary circumstances and/or abilities. For instance, the Aerith that appears in Cloud’s resolution scene in *Remake* (chapter 14) is commonly considered to be a post-OG Aerith, appearing to him from the future to try and dissuade him from falling for her. This time-defying event is made possible by the fact that post-OG Aerith’s spirit has access to the atemporal Lifestream because she's deceased. In my view, this explains why she dissolves into green light (Lifestream visual cue) at the end of [the resolution scene](https://youtu.be/ZPkqDB4guW8?si=JR1UTKl5cEFsFvfE&t=319) (5:19-5:45). This is not time travel per se, but it is a manner of communication unobstructed by the one-directionality of a linear timeline that only spirits can perform.
I. a) iv. Sephiroth Beyond Time
What we’ve covered so far amounts to our fourth point. Please familiarize yourself with the graph below before you continue reading. Refer back to the graph when you encounter **text in bold**.
The Remake Timelines Theory: FFVII OG Timeline
As we discussed in section “I. a) i.”, Sephiroth is dead and located in the Lifestream **for the duration of the green arrow and beyond point D**: in the context of the OG timeline, he can only ever be considered “alive” during the **period highlighted in purple**. In section “I. a) ii.”, we asserted that Sephiroth retained his individual will in the Lifestream, enabling him to exert his influence on the world of the living by manipulating his clones on the surface. In section “I. a) iii.”, we covered the atemporal nature of the Lifestream, which allows post-OG Aerith’s spirit to communicate with her past, living self thanks to her Cetra abilities. Now, I will explain to you how Sephiroth was able to do virtually the same thing, albeit his lack of Cetra blood.
To the characters of the story and a fully immersed first-time player of OG, the timeline above was not always an established series of events: when they first started playing *FFVII* OG, the player began at **point B**, with nothing existing beyond it. It is only as the player moved Cloud forward that the **black**, **arrowed timeline** was drawn, accumulating lived events (or **points**) in Cloud’s wake. The picture you see above is only available to Cloud and to the player with hindsight. All this to state the obvious: at **point B**, Cloud could not know what would occur, say, at **point C**.
During the **period highlighted in purple**, Sephiroth was “alive” again, accumulating new memories on the surface of the planet and adding them to his consciousness. When he entered the Lifestream for the second time at **point D**, he brought these memories with him. Simply put, after returning to the Lifestream at **point D**, Sephiroth remembers what happened during the **period highlighted in purple**. However, given that the Lifestream exists beyond time, upon Sephiroth’s consciousness’ return to the Lifestream at **point D**, his newly acquired memories were also made available to him at all points on the **green, double-arrowed line**— including **point A**, before the OG timeline even begins at **point B**. So while it is true that Cloud cannot know what will occur at **point C** if he is only at **point B**, Sephiroth indeed knows what will occur during the **period highlighted in purple** when he is only at **point A**. While a living, pre-OG Aerith would be able to receive post-OG Aerith’s spirit’s knowledge through the Lifestream thanks to her Cetra powers, Sephiroth has no need for this ability. The fact that he resides in the Lifestream for practically the entire ***FFVII*** **OG timeline** renders the limitations of time irrelevant: as far as the **timeline** is concerned, Sephiroth exists beyond time itself.
In summary, after **point D** was first encountered in OG, pre-OG Sephiroth (in the Lifestream) is made aware of his eventual defeat, and begins plotting an alternate path to victory. This time, with the benefit of hindsight, he will do things differently: we experience his "second” attempt at *FFVII* as the *Remake* trilogy.
I. a) v. Sephiroth Against Fate
Of course, the Whispers stand squarely in Sephiroth’s way. This leads us to our fifth point, which *Remake Ultimania* describes better than I ever could:
“According to Red XIII, who gained knowledge through his contact with Aerith, ‘The Whispers are drawn to those who attempt to alter destiny’s course and ensure they do not’ […]. It would appear that what the Whispers deem to be ‘fate’ is the original story of Final Fantasy VII” (section 08 “Secrets”, “Newly Arisen Mysteries”, “What Is the Goal of the Elusive Whispers?”, page 733).
OG’s plot line is the fated timeline, and the Whispers are tasked with its preservation. They prevent alternative paths from even beginning to branch out from the OG timeline, which poses a problem for Sephiroth: he cannot win *FFVII* if his destiny is to lose it.
I. a) vi. Sephiroth and the Multiverse
Consequently, our sixth point is that Sephiroth must dismantle the mechanisms of fate before he can even try to accomplish his dreams of godhood.
As Sephiroth explains in chapter 14 of *Rebirth*, “the planet encompasses \[an ever unfolding\] multitude of worlds”, and these“\[new worlds are born\] when the boundaries of fate are breached.” Since the Whispers uphold the “boundaries of fate”, a world in which Sephiroth’s evil plans succeed can only emerge after the Whispers have been defeated. Otherwise, destiny will continue to protect the OG plot line by preventing any significant deviations. Consequently, before the party vanquishes fate, the *Remake* timeline and the OG timeline are one and the same: before chapter 18, *Remake* Barret is OG Barret, *Remake* Tifa is OG Tifa, *Remake* Hojo is OG Hojo, etc. After the defeat of Destiny, the OG timeline is no longer protected by fate: there are now an infinite number of timelines or worlds, including those we see glimpses of in *Rebirth*: *Remake* Barret is no longer necessarily OG Barret, *Remake* Tifa is no longer necessarily OG Tifa, *Remake* Hojo is no longer necessarily OG Hojo, etc. Perhaps this is why Aerith gives the party the following warning at destiny’s crossroads in *Remake*:
“[This] is the wall of destiny. If we go through it… if we go beyond it… then all of us will change, too” (FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA script notes, “Destiny’s Crossroads”).
I. a) vii. Sephiroth’s Plan
Now that these six points have been elucidated, we can compose a solid hypothesis on how Sephiroth plots to win *FFVII*.
After gaining knowledge of his eventual demise (disk 3, chapter 3), pre-OG Sephiroth began thinking of what he must do in *Remake* from the Lifestream. First, Sephiroth must antagonize the Whispers in the initial stages of the OG timeline. He accomplishes this by commanding his clones to commit acts that drastically violate the fated timeline, engendering plot-line deviations that the Whispers must course-correct. The most extreme example transpires in *Remake*’s chapter 17 when the Sephiroth clone in President Shinra’s office kills Barret, forcing the Whispers to restore the fated plot line by coming forth and reviving him. The Whispers react to Sephiroth’s prodding by rushing in to protect fate, their efforts culminating in the protective wall of destiny that surrounds Midgar in chapter 18.
Secondly, after he’s created an opportunity for a battle against the Whispers, Sephiroth must convince the party to seize it and beat fate for him. After all, a mere Sephiroth clone is probably no match for Destiny. This second step is accomplished in *Remake*’s chapter 18 when Sephiroth successfully tempts Cloud to breach the boundaries of fate. Now that destiny is no longer a limitation, worlds deviating from the OG timeline can finally emerge; Sephiroth has a chance at victory.
The steps Sephiroth plans to take going forward are unknowable at this stage, but we do get more hints in *Rebirth*’s chapter 13. At the Temple of the Ancients, Sephiroth reveals a part of his plot:
“Sephiroth: My fragmented mother, these errant worlds... All shall be one again.
Aerith: The ‘Reunion’…!”
It seems Sephiroth eventually plans to merge the worlds created by destiny’s defeat in *Remake*’s chapter 18. My guess is he hopes to achieve godhood in part 3 and consolidate all diverting worlds into a single timeline protected by destiny once more— only this time, his victory will replace the ending of OG as the destined outcome. If he succeeds, Sephiroth’s Black Whispers will likely replace the planet’s Whispers as the arbiters of his desired fate.
I. b) Aerith’s Intervention
But Aerith can’t let this slide unchallenged!
We know that before chapter 18 of *Remake*, while the OG plot-line is still protected by fate, Aerith has knowledge of its future. This is insinuated by certain slips of the tongue: for instance, when Aerith reveals she knows Cloud is a mercenary upon meeting him for the second time in chapter 8, just like she knows Tifa will ask her to retrieve Marlene at Seventh Heaven in chapter 12. In the run-up to *Remake*, post-OG Aerith's spirit likely sensed Sephiroth planning his second try at *FFVII* in the Lifestream. She’s been able to anticipate Sephiroth’s plotting in the Lifestream before, namely in the context of *Advent Children*:
“[Aerith] had sensed a different presence within the Lifestream cycling around the planet […]. It was [Sephiroth] […]. That spirit was now operating from within the Lifestream. [She] sensed that he was planning to exert his influence [on] the surface of the planet” (On a Way to a Smile, Lifestream White 1).
If you’re wondering how Aerith was able to maintain her individuality in the Lifestream like Sephiroth, On a Way to a Smile provides the following explanation:
“[Aerith] was an Ancient, which explained how she was able to maintain her individuality even within the Lifestream. If she so wished she could become part of the planet at any time, but [she] thought it too early for that just yet” (Lifestream White 1).
It is thought that, as a countermeasure to Sephiroth's scheming, post-OG Aerith’s spirit used the atemporal nature of the Lifestream to inform her past, living self (pre-OG Aerith) of this new threat to the planet. Because the Cetra can commune with spirits, pre-OG Aerith would have been able to receive post-OG Aerith’s message from the Lifestream without a problem. Essentially, pre-OG Aerith received post-OG Aerith’s memories of the fated OG timeline. As a consequence, pre-OG Aerith embarks on the OG timeline with knowledge of the fated future that demands she give her life: the player experiences this version of her in *Remake*.
Be that as it may, it’s unclear how much *Remake* Aerith is aware of. You would think she’d be completely opposed to defeating, destiny since it protects the planet, but Aerith shows ambivalence toward the idea instead. Had she gotten a clear message from her future self that she must keep fate intact, she would not have allowed the party to enter the battle against fate in chapter 18. She doesn’t seem to know what the Whispers are the first time she encounters them either. Regardless, what’s important is that the Aerith seen in *Remake* is the result of pre-OG Aerith receiving knowledge from post-OG Aerith via the Lifestream.
I. c) Ambiguity: Memory Transfer or Time-Travel?
There remains an ambiguity pertaining to the Aerith we see in *Remake* and the question of time travel. What I’ve described to you in section “I. b)” is post-OG Aerith's spirit transferring her memories to her past self through the Lifestream. However, it’s possible that post-OG Aerith’s consciousness used the atemporal nature of the Lifestream to inhabit her living OG body instead, effectively time-traveling. There is no evidence to outright refute either explanation, since the gaps in Aerith’s memories of the OG plot-line in *Remake* can be explained in both cases. For instance, in a memory transfer scenario, it’s possible that post-OG Aerith only communicated the most essential information to pre-OG Aerith. On the other hand, in a time-travel scenario, one could interpret the following quotes as proof that the Whispers are progressively erasing Aerith’s memories of OG as *Remake* advances:
“Aerith: Every time the Whispers touch me, a piece of me falls away” (FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA script notes, “Aerith Speaks”)
“At any rate, Aerith is perplexed at how, like a flower being scattered, something inside is being taken away by the Whispers and lost to her” (Toriyama in FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA script notes, “Aerith Speaks”, “Scenario Staff Q&A - Answered by Motomu Toriyama”).
This ambiguity is completely irrelevant to Sephiroth’s situation in *Remake*, as we established in section “I. a) iv.”.
The specifics don’t matter nearly as much as I’m impressing upon you by explaining all these little alternatives. Simply keep in mind that: regardless of why, the Sephiroth and Aerith we see in *Remake* know the events of the OG game because they have acquired this knowledge from the future, and the events of *Remake* occur squarely within the OG timeline until the Whispers are defeated in chapter 18.
So there! That’s my iteration of the *Remake* Timelines Theory! I hope I’ve made it clear in your mind, or at least clearer. Now that we’ve established the widely theorized premise of the *Remake* trilogy, we can get into our theory on its hidden premise.
II. My Initial Curiosity
My theory first burgeoned upon going through *Remake* for the second time. I noticed something strange going on with Cloud, something that could not be explained by the *Remake* Timelines Theory. Key moments in *Remake* Cloud’s experience of the OG timeline (aka, everything before chapter 18) stuck out to me as strange and mysterious, and certain inexplicable audiovisual cues struck me as hugely significant. It was upon watching the tear fall from Cloud’s eye during my second go at chapter 8 that I knew I had to look into this.
At the very end of *Remake*’s chapter 8, Cloud watches Aerith walk away from him, humming happily into the night air as she sets off to lead the way to Sector 7. According to the VA script notes, “his heart skips a beat” and watching her walk away provokes a sudden “anxiety” within him. Triggered by the familiarity of the sight, a strange sensation overcomes Cloud:
“[There’s a] close-up shot of Cloud’s fingertips (they’re tingling). He presses them to his temples (his eyes are burning). A trickle of tears quickly rolls down from the eye hidden behind his hand” (FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA script notes, “A Midnight Ambush”).
If you’re clever, you’ll recognize these lines as a reference to the speech Cloud makes in OG following Aerith’s death at the City of the Ancients (“My fingers are tingling. My mouth is dry. My eyes are burning!”) (disk 1, chapter 28). In this small moment in chapter 8 of *Remake*, Cloud experiences a flash of the profound grief he is destined to feel upon Aerith’s fated death.
Many players immediately recognized the composition of this scene: the blue-greenish air, the straight path Aerith heads down, the sight of her walking away itself… this moment closely resembles Cloud’s Sleeping Forest dream of Aerith in OG, wherein Cloud and Aerith’s very last words are exchanged (disk 1, chapter 25). Toriyama, codirector of the *Remake* project, comments on this scene thusly:
“It’s possible these similarities […] cause a memory of the future to be called forth in Cloud” (FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA script notes, “A Midnight Ambush”).
The language used by Toriyama here is strange in both the English translation and the Japanese original: the term “memory of the future” makes no sense. One cannot remember things they haven’t already experienced, so why did Toriyama use the word “memory” to describe a "future" event? Couldn’t he have simply said that *Remake* Cloud experiences “visions of the future” rather than “\[memories\]”?
Cloud experiences a few moments like these throughout the game. These pseudo-premonitions are just as markedly exclusive to *Remake* as the Whispers are. I did not want to dismiss them as a foreshadowing device the devs included just to elicit emotional reactions from OG players; I felt they were more important. And thus began my digging! My mission was initially to figure out what these “\[memories of the future\]” (MOTFs) could signify… I had no clue it would turn into what I’m writing right now.
II. a) Each MOTF and Its Context
I began by finding every one of Cloud’s MOTFs so I could better understand them.
MOTF 1 occurs in chapter 2 on Sector 8’s Loveless Street, when Cloud sees Aerith struggling against the Whispers. The VA script notes reveal that even though this is only his first time seeing her, Cloud recognizes Aerith’s face:
“Recognizing Aerith’s face causes Cloud to experience [a hallucination]. Sephiroth is suddenly standing between him and Aerith” (FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus, VA script notes, “Encountering Aerith”).
Sephiroth then taunts Cloud with words that, according to the script notes, “\[live\] inside of Cloud's heart”*:* “You can’t protect anyone. Not even yourself”. Cloud should not recognize Aerith’s face at this point in the OG timeline, nor should he associate it with not being able to protect people.
MOTF 2 occurs in chapter 3, at the plaza in front of the Sector 7 slums support pillar. Cloud experiences a MOTF of the plate falling, which is fated to occur at a much later point in chapter 12. The Whispers float near him, “watching Cloud alertly as he sees a vision of the future” (*FFVII Remake Ultimania*, section 08 “Secrets”, “Newly Arisen Mysteries”, “What Is the Goal of the Elusive Whispers?”, page 733).
MOTF 3 occurs in Aerith’s church at the start of chapter 8, when Aerith mentions that her mother’s materia is “not good for anything at all”. Triggered by the mention and sight of the White Materia, Cloud’s fourth MOTF takes the form of a vision: he sees quick flashes of the materia falling into the lake of the Forgotten Capital and Aerith holding her hands together in prayer. These are evidently visions of her death in OG (disk 1, chapter 28).
MOTF 4 is the one we first discussed, occurring at the very end of chapter 8 as Cloud watches Aerith walk away from him to lead the way toward Sector 7.
MOTF 5 occurs in chapter 13 shortly after the Sector 7 plate has fallen on the slums. Cloud tells Barret that Marlene is safe at Aerith’s house, and they begin heading there. As Cloud thinks about Aerith, the VA script notes describe the very next moment as follows:
“Cloud: Tifa, you know anything about the Ancients?
Tifa: I’ve heard of them before, but…
Barret walks on ahead, showing little interest in the topic.
Barret: Read a book on planetology and they’re sure to come up. They’re a tribe that cultivated the planet a real long time ago. Used to talk to it. That sort of stuff.
Cloud: That must be why the Turks were after her.
[Psychic] interference starts up.
[Cloud has a] flashback of Sephiroth from five years ago, after learning of his ancestry at Shinra Manor […].
Sephiroth [(in flashback, voice tinged with madness)]: Within my veins flows the blood of the Ancients. I am the rightful heir to this planet!
The flashback ends and Cloud looks lost in thought. The interference starts up once more. Cloud makes agonized sounds. When he opens his eyes, Sephiroth is actually standing before him.
Sephiroth: You failed again— failed to protect [her]*.
Cloud is startled. He shrinks back. Tifa watches what’s happening. The other two can’t see Sephiroth. All they see is Cloud acting frightened.
Sephiroth: But loss will make you strong. […] Isn’t that what you want?
With that, Sephiroth departs.”
*Sephiroth does not use a gendered pronoun here, because the grammatical structure of the original Japanese sentence doesn’t necessitate it. I've seen some debate as to whether the proper translation is “her” (Aerith, who’s just been kidnapped), or “them” (Jessie, Biggs or Wedge, who have seemingly just died). I believe Sephiroth was referring to Aerith for a few reasons. First, Cloud’s hallucinations of Sephiroth always appear as a response to whatever he is perceiving or thinking about at the moment. At this point in the scene, Cloud has been thinking and talking about Aerith for some time, and not about Jessie, Biggs or Wedge. The Sephiroth hallucination must therefore be referring to “her” rather than to “them”. Secondly, Cloud was never tasked with “[protecting]” Avalanche, but he was in fact tasked with “[protecting]” Aerith as her bodyguard back in chapter 8: it makes far more sense for Sephiroth to be referring to Aerith when he speaks about someone Cloud “failed to protect”. Finally, FFVII Remake Ultimania describes this piece of dialogue as “[Sephiroth aiming] these profound words at Cloud, who not only failed to prevent the tragedy in the Sector 7 slums but allowed Aerith to be abducted” (Sephiroth’s profile in section 01 “Character & World”, “Impressive Words”, page 29): the specific mention of Aerith here seals my decision to translate the line with the pronoun “her”.
Contrary to Sephiroth’s words, this is the first time in *Remake* that Cloud “\[fails\] to protect \[Aerith\]”, and he hasn’t “\[lost\]” her either— not yet, at least. This fifth MOTF must then be similar to MOTF 1, in that Sephiroth is referring to Cloud’s guilt surrounding Aerith’s death in OG.
MOTF 6 occurs in chapter 17, in Aerith and Ifalna’s old room at Shinra HQ. The Whispers swarm Aerith as she tells the party earnestly that she wants to do everything in her power to help her friends and the planet: according to the script notes, it is at this very moment that, “for some reason, Cloud feels his chest constrict tightly” (*FFVII Remake Material Ultimania Plus*, VA script notes, “Aerith Speaks”). In the corresponding cutscene, this unpleasant physiological reaction to Aerith’s words makes Cloud glance down at his chest with a confounded frown. This physical response to her speech about wanting to fulfill her duty to the planet implies that Cloud somehow knows deep down that saving the world will cost Aerith her life.
At this point, I noticed that five out of the six MOTFs Cloud experiences in *Remake* are triggered by and/or revolve around Aerith specifically, the one exception being a MOTF of the Sector 7 plate fall. One could actually argue that this MOTF revolves around Aerith too, considering the plate fall marks the first time Aerith is taken away from Cloud since reuniting with her in the Sector 5 slums church. This is more than plausible, as MOTF 5 proves that in the wake of the Sector 7 plate fall, Cloud’s main concern is Aerith (see section “II. a)”). How fitting is it, then, that the merc of few words’ longest uninterrupted piece of dialogue in all of *Remake* is:
“We found an underground Shinra lab where they've done human testing. This wasn't the first time and it won't be the last. I know these people, and I know they're never gonna let Aerith go. She's the last living Ancient on the planet. Think about what that means to Shinra's scientists. Especially to that son of a bitch Hojo. We're all just numbers and meat to him—“ (Remake, chapter 13).
Cloud would’ve gone on too, had Elmyra and Tifa not stopped him.
At this point in my research, my questions were only stacking up. What are these MOTFs? Why is Cloud the only one experiencing them? Why do all of them implicate Aerith? What did the devs hope to accomplish with their inclusion in the game? What do they mean for *Remake*’s story? But most importantly:
II. b) What Does Cloud Know?
The first assertion we have to make is simple, yet essential: the only reason Cloud would experience MOTFs is that whatever’s triggered them is significant to him in one way or another. Some part of him must recognize his triggers for them to be triggers at all. It’s clear he doesn’t consciously understand the meaning of his MOTF triggers, just like his Jenova triggers: for example, Cloud doesn’t know why Zack’s name causes him to experience psychic interference, but it sure does. We as players know Cloud’s MOTFs are hinting at Aerith’s fated death because of our awareness of OG, but as a character navigating the OG timeline, *Remake* Cloud shouldn't even be unconsciously aware of Aerith’s eventual death in the slightest! Whatever the nature of the MOTFs, it’s essential to understand that if Cloud “\[recognizes\]” Aerith’s face the first time he sees her, it must mean some part of him knows Aerith’s face in the first place. If this recognition triggers a hallucination of Sephiroth telling Cloud he “can’t protect anyone”, it must mean some part of him knows he was once unable to protect Aerith. The same goes for every other MOTF: subconsciously, *Remake* Cloud somehow has memories of the OG timeline. Most interestingly, it looks like he either only has OG memories related to Aerith, or like his OG memories of Aerith are simply the only ones prominent enough to trigger his MOTFs. Why and how does *Remake* Cloud have memories of OG, and why are they so focused on Aerith in particular? What does he know?
When examining a situation with no explanation, it’s wise to examine similar situations that have already been explained. Maybe the mystery of *Remake* Cloud’s MOTFs will become more approachable if we consider the cases of the only other *Remake* characters who seem to know the future: Aerith and Sephiroth. *Remake* Sephiroth knows the future of the OG timeline because his consciousness exists beyond time in the Lifestream, while *Remake* Aerith likely obtained her knowledge of the future from post-OG Aerith’s spirit via the Lifestream. But what about Cloud? Where does his weaker, fragmented knowledge come from?

Admitting we have a problem is the first step in solving it! Author is a Eugenean talking about her experience with rising crime in the city, never saw this story but hey, still relevant today. Found this little gem by random chance. Title is a hopefully relatable quote from the article. You can agree or disagree with the author, but it's actually pretty well written with sources included. (just including the whole article, for people who don't want to click links!)

I Caught Two Men Stealing From My Home. The Aftermath Was Absurd—and All Too Typical.

This experience crystallized Oregon’s deeper problems.

BY REBECCA SCHUMANJUNE 21, 20225:40 AM
Typically, guys wearing power-company vests don’t leave the houses they’re working on laden down with backpacks—let alone power tools, a scooter, and a Nintendo Switch. But that was the scene I happened upon at 6:30 p.m. on a Tuesday in mid-April when I puttered into my driveway in Eugene, Oregon, my 7-year-old ensconced in the back seat.
For a second, my brain tried to normalize the incident: This is just my daughter’s dad stopping by—except there are two of him, and they’re dressed as electricians for some reason? Then, a second later, everything whooshed into place: Oh, wait, I’m being robbed. Or, rather, I was being burgled. I would get reminded of this distinction later, when I made the dubious choice to join the chorus of aggrieved buttinskies on Nextdoor, where my well-meaning post to warn the neighborhood would turn me into an accidental vigilante hero for a day.
Unfortunately, it’s true: My reaction to this burgle was the lived-out fantasy of many who have been on the business end of a property crime. As the two goons took off on foot down my street, I went into fight-or-flight mode—and I chose fight.
“Well,” I said to my confused child, “let’s go see if we can get our stuff back.”
I peeled my 2005 Subaru back onto the street and easily overtook my two targets, who then hurtled themselves into an alley, whereupon I cornered one by the driver’s side window as the other made haste across the adjacent parking lot.
“Just give it back, bro!” I yelled out my window. “Just give it back! I’m a single mom! Just give it back.”
I repeated this until either I reminded him too much of his meanest teacher or he realized he’d been caught in broad daylight. “Fine,” he said. “Just fucking take it.”
He shoved a backpack through my driver’s side window. Inside it was both my laptops and my daughter’s iPad from school. Back at home, I would discover these guys had used channel lock pliers to force open the back door, but that the general chaos of my home had prevented them from locating my passport, jewelry, or sole item of irreplaceable value: the Montblanc fountain pen that my father, who died in a bicycle accident two years ago, had gotten for his law school graduation. My cat was unfazed.
I can honestly tell you that this little caper of mine was thrilling and deeply satisfying. It was also the exact wrong thing to do. Even this fanatical open-carry gun website implores: “Don’t chase criminals.” What if these two dipsticks had been armed? As unlikely as that was—property crime in my town is often driven by addiction, and weapons are worth money, which can buy drugs—I put myself and my child in potential danger. And for what? Three grand worth of electronics. As any reputable expert will tell you, you’re never to give chase to a thief, because human life is not worth possessions. As much as I admit to enjoying being called a “badass” by everyone I told this story, plus the listeners of KLCC Oregon, I should not have done this.
I did call the police, on the nonemergency line, because the dudes were long gone and nobody was hurt. I declined the dispatcher’s offer to send two officers to fingerprint a bunch of stuff I’d already touched. At best, that would have just added two more sets of prints to my town’s burgeoning roster of perennially at-large property criminals.
There are larger issues here, issues much more important than my would-be cool story. First, it’s an example of how in Eugene, small-scale property crime is now de facto legal. It is largely nonviolent, so it’s rarely seen as worth police resources to track down the goods. At the same time, it is so prevalent that any time one vest-wearing bozo gets nabbed, three more spring up in his place. This was my house’s second break-in in six months, and my fourth property crime total in the three years I’ve lived here as an adult. Eugene is my hometown, so I can also add the four times my childhood house, where my mother still lives, has been burgled since the early 2000s. When I was little, we left our front door unlocked so regularly that I wasn’t aware front doors had locks on them until I was much older. By the time I turned 30, however, every door in my parents’ house had been pried open at least once. (“Time to finally get that alarm system!” said my dad for three straight decades.)
Still, it’s a mistake to treat this trend solely as a vexing crime problem. Eugene’s descent into its property crime epidemic has been concurrent, unsurprisingly, with two addiction epidemics: First, the methamphetamine nightmare of the 1990s—when pseudoephedrine pills were still unregulated—hit Oregon and other Western states particularly hard. That wave segued all too naturally into the opioid and fentanyl crisis of the present. Meanwhile, not only did meth never really leave, but its use in Oregon also surged with the pandemic, with three Oregonians per day currently dying a drug-related death.
Since our conversation was necessarily brief, I don’t know the housing or drug situation of the guys who broke into my place. But local statistics point to them as two more casualties of these plagues. (Granted, those statistics are from nearby Portland, and they are police-sourced, so take them how you wish.)
For all the ambivalent empathy that the opioid epidemic has engendered, the local property crime scourge has set off a fierce public backlash. My incident brought out an unsurprising chorus of bloodlust on Nextdoor and elsewhere, when I shared it because I wanted to give my immediate neighbors a heads-up: “You should have kicked their asses,” they wrote. “We need to rise up and defend our property.”
This town’s petty crime is often attributed, at least in the national conservative press, to our West Coast government’s decision to temporarily allow urban camping during the pandemic. (That policy has now officially ended, for what it’s worth.) Towns like mine have often been characterized in the popular imagination as unlivable crime-addled hellholes. I will be the first to admit that our tent cities are sometimes blatant open-air drug markets, but this is the case even as our property values inflate to absurd proportions—and our crime is actually on the decline. Still, Oregonians like me currently have about a 2.7 percent chance of being burgled, which, at almost 30 percent higher than the national average, is very high. I learned very efficiently how anecdotes like mine get around (I can’t help it if I’m a dynamic storyteller!) and attract the righteous indignation of other former victims, so many often feel, incorrectly, like we few honest vanguards are awash in a sea of riffraff.
This atmosphere, in turn, inspires my locality’s equally unreasonable political extremists to put forth and exacerbate their own untenable solutions. Even in a hyperpolarized American environment, Oregon is more polarized than most. For decades, our liberal enclaves have made Portlandia look understated, while our conservative areas make Texas’ look progressive.
For example, during the heyday of Eugene’s recently dismantled and infamous Washington Jefferson Park tent city, a larger break-in at a bicycle store was traced at least partially back to the encampment. The police swept the tents and made a flurry of arrests. Some of the bikes were found. This resulted in part in outrage over using resources to hassle the city’s most impoverished residents: “A stolen bike, yes, that sucks,” an advocate for the unhoused told a local news outlet. “But what are your priorities? And I’m sorry, but a stolen bike isn’t the priority.”
Well, trust me, in this town, it definitely isn’t. Recovering those bikes was an anomaly; in Eugene, most of these burglaries go unsolved. In fact, 87 percent of burglaries in the whole country do, too. The get-tough-on-property-crime proponents assert that statistically, this sends a message that stealing is fair game, and sure, that is a message I do not condone. But I also agree with a somewhat less rabid version of the opposing view: Property is replaceable, these crimes are nonviolent, and everyone currently rifling through houses and dealing drugs out of tents in my town is human. They deserve a chance to get their lives on track.
So, what should be the town’s priority? Fixing the addiction epidemics is a perilously long way away from happening, for reasons that are as polarizing as addiction’s consequences. In the sobering and excellent Dopesick, author Beth Macy goes into painfully exacting detail about opioids’ near-inescapable hold on the human brain. Macy argues that the true way out of this epidemic is “low-barrier treatment,” which includes supportive housing and medical interventions such as safe injection supplies, fentanyl testing strips, buprenorphine access, and supervised consumption sites. All of these options, however, are a tough sell even in a “progressive” town like Eugene, where supervised consumption sites are what NIMBY nightmares are made of, and low-barrier treatment can run up against deeply held moral stigma: Gas is $5 a gallon, and my taxes are going to some junkie?
In the meantime, while some admirably advocate and vote and wait for those breakthroughs, what should we do about the burglaries themselves? Should we pursue more law enforcement, or more compassion toward the burglars? More arrests that allegedly might deter this, or policies that might alleviate income inequality? Does—as approximately 83 percent of the suggestions from my Nextdoor thread contended—every house in town need a tripwire that handcuffs trespassers on sight? Or should all businesses be taxed at 500 percent, and the proceeds used to furnish every fentanyl dealer in town with a nice apartment and mad cash? The debate has degenerated such that these are the sorts of cartoonish positions each side believes they’re fighting—and, in fact, are the only available choices. Just check out Eugene’s Reddit section any day, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
The actual blight on small American towns like mine isn’t property crime. It’s that any tenable solution to it has been swallowed up into a churning abyss of extremism and perceived counterextremism. No one seems to have a convincing answer to the most basic question: So what should we do? What should I do?
Burglaries don’t have to be largely unsolvable, and more property criminals could be apprehended. But while I don’t want those dudes or any of their buddies to come back to my house, I also don’t want them in an American prison, where their “rehabilitation” will consist largely of learning better ways to commit even bigger crimes when they get out, and their options for alternative forms of acquiring money will be even more limited than they are now. Lacking any meaningful restorative justice program for petty thieves in my town (which would, in turn, necessitate locating and apprehending them), I decided my own problems could be solved, for now, with a padlock on my back gate.
And then, not long after the break-in, a Nintendo Switch appeared on my town’s Craigslist. Its included components and color combination were identical to the set stolen from my house. I debated, briefly, bringing my vigilante justice alter ego Super Annoying out of retirement, answering the ad and showing up to shrill my wrongdoers into returning what was mine. But this time, I thought better of it. My life is not worth much, but it’s probably worth more than Mario Kart. I can only hope the console’s new owners enjoy it as much as my daughter did—at least until someone steals it again.

Everyone seems to be digging this album, so I suppose ill strike while the iron is hot here - does anyone else find the level of lyricism in this album not only a high point for the band (though frankly, they've always had good lyricism especially for the scene they're in), but also just very solid even out of the musical context?
I'll admit to being a bit of a nerd when it comes to writing and lit, and after listening to the album I sat down and listened again while reading through the lyrics of each song as they played and was left with a few standouts.
1) From the initial track, 'Thirst.'
Followed by the thirst An honest gaze left broken and marred
...
Dragging my knuckles Forward but through the mud Secluded lower form Sickened by my thirst for change
..
Though not the strongest lyrics on the album, still evocative imagery and impressively emotionally compelling while also being careful in its diction. Like the message of the song (and extending to the album, really) the song comes with a sense of jagged brevity which to me adds to the poignancy of it. It also sets the continuing motif of water being an agent of change, the process of grief and loss (of people, identity, and faith) being the core of the album.
2) From 'Don't Reach For Me'
I dream of a cleansing wave Reborn Don't reach for me No lies can spread (Spread, spread) From a tongue removed
..
I dream of a cleansing wave Set me free I return to form No longer bound to mе
Though this track is much more on the nose, largely characterized by the visceral and aggressive dogma that metalcore is known for, is still points back to the previous ideals and symbolism established in the initial tracks. Again we are lent the idea that water will wash away (erode, even) our imperfections. Change will aid in the 'return to form,' grief and harbored grudges 'no longer bound to me.'
3) This one is cheating, as it's really the whole song of 'Moss Covers All' with its 46 second run time:
This house just swallows me It doesn't feel like it did before Trapped in endless rain Barren moor
And all the vines will find their way Through the dirt and hardened clay
The wind and rain will force decay Moss covers all
This frankly reads pretty well even as spoken word poetry. From the established messages of conflicting ideals of faith, self, and loss, we are given the line 'Trapped in endless rain, barren moor.' This deep into the album the layers have been stripped away, and we get the image of rocks, stripped and naked (barren) being exposed to the harsh elements of rain (water) again. Over time, despite everything, this allows moss and roots to crack and mold them. Neat.
4) Jumping from 'Moss Covers All' immediately into 'The Calm that keeps You Awake'
You fill your home with waves Nothing still can stay When the storm starts to recede Parting clouds reveal your grief Nothing still can stay
Hey look at that! Water enacting change again. Who'da thunk? While not super overt and beating you over the head every track, the album continues its steady use of the metaphor. I'm impressed by how lyrically cohesive and well stated the album is, with this never coming across as corny. Again, the imagery lent from the lyrics are both very well done and somewhat understated, especially when examined through the context of typical metalcore lyricism.
5) Closing with 'Sit and Mourn'
Collecting petals of every memory All I'm left with is all I know (I know) Finding my own time to sit and mourn Grief that spreads but will not show
..
A test at every turn All I focus on is strength I will carry you through fire
Loss we share means swallowing pain Will you inherit my grief If I finally choose to sleep?
..
"Why'd you leave?" "I feel like I'vе failed."
I really, really like this closing track. The amazing mixing, use of ambience, and killer vocals / instrumentals aside, I found the change in expression super neat here. Once again we are given the notion of grief expressed as petals. i.e. plant life and growth. While capable of shattering and eroding rocks (barren moore, yada yada) it also can create beauty. Grief then once again can be seen as spreading through the soil, unseen from above.
This final use of the recurrent theme is then given its needed closing juxtaposition, as they express the strength needed to 'carry you through fire.' While the grief and doubt expressed thus far has always been in the processing stage, prone to mourning and self reflection, in this last closing cacophony we are seeing the narrator of the album push aside their own feelings to help someone through the immediate feelings of loss and rage and pain that come from a fresh loss. Then, we get the expressed doubt of if the narrator gives up, will the party they are helping have that fire smolder and die? Will they find themselves dealing with the cold, liquid grief we've heard about up to this point?
The final eerie quote from this track implies that this did happen, and the cycle of the album will continue as this person who could not be helped slips into the thirst for change within their heart, and the constant state of erosion granted by that search.
TL;DR - This album rocks in a lot of ways, and I think the lyrics are a huge part.

I have been taking a history class at a community college in which the professor has very erratic grading. Exams are take home essays that are known well in advance of their deadline and I had 3 exams in total including the final exam. Given that his grading had been very harsh initially, I sent him a copy of my exam 1 responses to get his feedback as to whether or not I had to change anything. Moreover, I copied the email with the exact spelling of my name and he managed to mistype it and continued to mistype the spelling of my name in a new manner each time I communicated with him throughout the semester which I was willing to overlook having gone through a butchering of my name throughout my life. When I sent him my exam 1 responses, I used direct quotes from the textbook provided without attributing them. At the time, he said that my response was fine as is and I did not need to change anything. I got an A for that exam and I continued to use quotes from the relevant textbook material without attributing them throughout every assignment during the semester which he overlooked and I was easily on track to get an A in the class. Suddenly for the final, he accused me of plagiarism for using quotes without attribution. This has come as a shock to me and I know that he is technically right, but I would have hoped that he would have pointed out this error of mine when I had emailed him asking for feedback for test 1 way back in the semester so I could have quoted the appropriate material correctly and not been in this situation. I feel completely shocked that this practice while incorrect, was overlooked for an entire semester for so many assignments. Do I have any recourse

Been shopping around for shipping for a while now. Everyone is giving me quotes 2-3k below what Matson actually charges to ship my truck to Hawaii. Is it common practice to give someone a low quote so they use that shipper then just raise the bill? Really just makes me not trust any shipping broker at all

Am I the only person experiencing this?
I am moving out of state and have been posting on Facebook marketplace, Craigslist, OfferUp- and I’ll have people ask me if an item is available and then just completely ghost me. Or they’ll say they will meet up and never show. I honestly feel so disheartened and feel like crying :/ it’s such a stressful process and the thing that sucks is I have such good quality stuff, it would just cost way too much to ship it.
I’m going to try here, if anything interests you let me know and I will work out a good deal for you. It only allows me to post so many pictures so if anything interests you ask me and I will send you pictures of it. Good and genuine Vegas locals please come through.
BRAND NEW TV STAND‼️ Still in box, never got a chance to use: Selling for $250 (picture is what it looks like when put together) 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Outdoor backyard table set with 4 chairs, just got this for 770, selling it for $550- shoot me a message and I’ll give you a better price or send me your best offer. 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
(PRICE LOWERED‼️)✨Cherry wood desk / top quality wood Bought this for around 2000, selling for just $650 but will give you a better price- or send me your best offer. Willing to work with you 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
(PRICE LOWERED‼️) ✨65 inch Sony Bravia $550 + $75 Klipsch subwoofers and speaker: AVAILABLE ⭐️ and we made it a better deal for all of you so someone can enjoy. Must be bought together as a set to get this deal 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
3 piece wood set, living room Table, side table, table holding TV (can also be used for other things like putting pictures flowers etc) $300 for all 3 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
I have 1 great blender available: High, strong, speedy, quiet, works great. $25 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
BRAND NEW ‼️ still in case, never used : Floating shelf home decoration. This is your sign to beautify your home. You can put pictures on there, plants, vases, anything and it gives it more of a home like feel. Selling for $25 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
Crystal home decor: $15 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Food Processor: works great! $15 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Portable stove: perfect for having shabu shabu, or hot pot, or bbq at home together at the table to enjoy together. Great to enjoy outdoors for parks & camping as well $15 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
1Strong sturdy Iron Board used twice $20 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Tripod can be used small on the table and extends huge up to 75 inches. Has a holder for camera or phone: $20 🌺 CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
BRAND NEW: YAHTZEE Board game still in wrapper with price tag on it bought for 20, selling for $10 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
Tower fan, just got this for 70 bucks, selling for 50 but I’ll give it to you for a better price. Just shoot me a message with your best offer🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
MARBLE BOARD: $20 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
5 pound weights : $6 each both for $10 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Wi-Fi extenders: 45 each or 75 for both 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Waffle maker: $10 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Skewer grill brand new still in box, never used : $20 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
ceramic big vase: bought for 70, selling for 30- send me your best offer we will work something out 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
Electric hand mixer: works great and makes baking a breeze!! A must for baking $15 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Super cute weighted soap holder brand new: $5 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Couch is from Jubilee LV luxury modern couch purchased at 3,150. Selling it for 1000 shoot me a message and I’ll give you a better price or send me your best offer. We work something out. 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
lamp: $15 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
Air fryer, used a few times. $20 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
realistic faux plant decoration $10 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
This couch is the comfiest couch. It is stuffed with goose feathers so you just melt into the couch. needs to be lightly cleaned (was quoted $50 for a cleaning but I have no time so just selling the couch for super cheap) but this is the most comfortable couch, best naps on it ever! I just got these covers for 120 (they’re removable super easy no worries) lolll but you can have them for free with this couch. Probably should take it off and let the couch shine $200 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
small dresser: Has a little chip on it but nothing too noticeable $10 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE 🌺
(PRICE LOWERED‼️)✨Round table with Tempered glass with 4 chairs and cherry wood stand- this is a 2000 tempered glass table imported from Italy- selling for $600 but shoot me a message and we can work something out or send me your best offer. 🌺CURRENTLY AVAILABLE🌺
okay hear me out I know Christmas is a little ways away but it sneaks up every year and this year you’re going to be like man when that Asian girl was selling the Christmas stuff I should have gotten it for cheap lol ✨pine cone ribbon lamp battery operated: $5 🌺currently available🌺 ✨nutcracker: $5 🌺currently available🌺 ✨gnomes there’s 2 $5 each 🌺currently available🌺 ✨light up wreath: $5 🌺currently available🌺 ✨Christmas table decor: $5 ✨currently available✨ ✨Christmas towel: $2 🌺currently available🌺 Christmas plate/tray: $5 🌺currently available🌺 Or take all the Christmas stuff for $20 total

It is easy to forget, as one is looking at old patents online, that not every inventor spoke English. I’ve looked at several interesting non-english patents in the past, and stumbled over an interesting looking one today too. It is for how to do attach a handle to your shaving apparatus. Or to put it in a different way; a handle attachment to your razor.
Patented by Paul Druseidt, the invention gives a razor that both pack flat and is easy to assemble. It consists of a normal-ish razor head and a U-shaped handle made from spring steel. The handle is ever so slightly smaller than the head of the razor and can nestle inside it.
Patent drawing from German patent 323,451
The key is the shape of the recesses or hole on the underside of the razor. The keyhole, if you will. As can be seen from the drawing, it was longer one way than the other, and had arches or troughs on either side.
The U-shaped handle was, as mentioned, springy. You would insert it along the long axis of the hole, then twist it 90°. The arches on either side would stop it from slipping back, and the tension of the spring steel would hold it in place. After shaving the handle could be twisted back, removed, and placed against the inside of the razor head
Or, to quote the patent;

…der U-förmig gebogene Handgriff 6 zwecks Befestigung an der Kammplatte 2 mit seinen federnden Enden 5 in zwei unter der Kammplatte vorgesehene muldenförmige Aussparungen 4 eingeführt und sodann um 90° gedreht wird, wobei die federnden Enden in zwei weitere, enger aneinander liegende, muldenförmige Aussparungen 3 eintreten und in diesen festgehalten werden, während er nach Gebrauch aus den muldenförmigen Aussparungen herausgezogen und von unten gegen die Kammplatte gelegt wird.

For those whose German is a bit rusty, the autotranslated version runs as follows:

…the U-shaped curved handle 6 for attachment to the comb plate 2 with its resilient Ends 5 inserted into two trough-shaped recesses 4 provided under the comb plate and then rotated by 90 °, the resilient ends in two more, narrower Adjacent, trough-shaped recesses 3 enter and held in these while he is pulled out of the trough-shaped recesses after use and is placed against the comb plate from below.

All clear and fairly straight forward.
I though initially that a top cap could have been fastened by the pair of hook shaped projections on the bottom plate. I also though that these projections also would have acted as blade guides for a normal Gillette three hole blade.
Further research showed me that maybe was no top cap, and the hooks just held on to a proprietary blade. The first hint came in Waits’ Razor Compendium. Waits’ Compendium do mention a Druseidt razor – along with the similar Impero and Ratio razor. And in the description of the later, Waits states that “the special thick double-edged blade has two square holes and two centre oval dimples”.
Waits’ Compendium also mentions that “later versions has two pieces”, by which he seems to mean that at least the late production Ratio was made with a top cap. This in turn matches with pictures I found in a thread over on Shaving Universe, which clearly shows a top cap.
A top cap, I might add, that looks very much like Waits’ description of a “special thick double edged blade”…
Was Waits just confusing a poor quality picture of a top cap for a proprietary blade? Quite possible. It could simply be that a lot of the Druseidt, Impero, and Ratio razors that have survived have lost their top caps over the years.
Interestingly all three of the razors mentioned also have u-shaped handles. But none of the three has the handle attachment method described in the patent. Instead they uses a swinging out handle, which still relies on spring pressure to lock in place.
Overall the Druseidt patent looks like it would make an interesting razor, possible more interesting than the Druseidt razors that were actually manufactured.
You can read the full text of Druseidt’s patent at Espacenet, or a translated version at Google Patents.

Searching hasn't gotten me very far so... Can a team use behavior like failing a drug test to void a contract? I'm thinking about Val of course and all the quotes from various people on the team seeming very done with him.
Personally I'm a big fan of his. He plays my favorite style of hockey very well and for my team. And I always hope an addict will be able to stay in recovery. But I'm wondering about what the Avs can do if they should choose to. As far as I know, a suspended player counts against the cap and I think we can all see the level of liability that represents.

It is easy to forget, as one is looking at old patents online, that not every inventor spoke English. I’ve looked at several interesting non-english patents in the past, and stumbled over an interesting looking one today too. It is for how to do attach a handle to your shaving apparatus. Or to put it in a different way; a handle attachment to your razor.
Patented by Paul Druseidt, the invention gives a razor that both pack flat and is easy to assemble. It consists of a normal-ish razor head and a U-shaped handle made from spring steel. The handle is ever so slightly smaller than the head of the razor and can nestle inside it.
Patent drawing from German patent 323,451
The key is the shape of the recesses or hole on the underside of the razor. The keyhole, if you will. As can be seen from the drawing, it was longer one way than the other, and had arches or troughs on either side.
The U-shaped handle was, as mentioned, springy. You would insert it along the long axis of the hole, then twist it 90°. The arches on either side would stop it from slipping back, and the tension of the spring steel would hold it in place. After shaving the handle could be twisted back, removed, and placed against the inside of the razor head
Or, to quote the patent;

…der U-förmig gebogene Handgriff 6 zwecks Befestigung an der Kammplatte 2 mit seinen federnden Enden 5 in zwei unter der Kammplatte vorgesehene muldenförmige Aussparungen 4 eingeführt und sodann um 90° gedreht wird, wobei die federnden Enden in zwei weitere, enger aneinander liegende, muldenförmige Aussparungen 3 eintreten und in diesen festgehalten werden, während er nach Gebrauch aus den muldenförmigen Aussparungen herausgezogen und von unten gegen die Kammplatte gelegt wird.

For those whose German is a bit rusty, the autotranslated version runs as follows:

…the U-shaped curved handle 6 for attachment to the comb plate 2 with its resilient Ends 5 inserted into two trough-shaped recesses 4 provided under the comb plate and then rotated by 90 °, the resilient ends in two more, narrower Adjacent, trough-shaped recesses 3 enter and held in these while he is pulled out of the trough-shaped recesses after use and is placed against the comb plate from below.

All clear and fairly straight forward.
I though initially that a top cap could have been fastened by the pair of hook shaped projections on the bottom plate. I also though that these projections also would have acted as blade guides for a normal Gillette three hole blade.
Further research showed me that maybe was no top cap, and the hooks just held on to a proprietary blade. The first hint came in Waits’ Razor Compendium. Waits’ Compendium do mention a Druseidt razor – along with the similar Impero and Ratio razor. And in the description of the later, Waits states that “the special thick double-edged blade has two square holes and two centre oval dimples”.
Waits’ Compendium also mentions that “later versions has two pieces”, by which he seems to mean that at least the late production Ratio was made with a top cap. This in turn matches with pictures I found in a thread over on Shaving Universe, which clearly shows a top cap.
A top cap, I might add, that looks very much like Waits’ description of a “special thick double edged blade”…
Was Waits just confusing a poor quality picture of a top cap for a proprietary blade? Quite possible. It could simply be that a lot of the Druseidt, Impero, and Ratio razors that have survived have lost their top caps over the years.
Interestingly all three of the razors mentioned also have u-shaped handles. But none of the three has the handle attachment method described in the patent. Instead they uses a swinging out handle, which still relies on spring pressure to lock in place.
Overall the Druseidt patent looks like it would make an interesting razor, possible more interesting than the Druseidt razors that were actually manufactured.
You can read the full text of Druseidt’s patent at Espacenet, or a translated version at Google Patents.

Ok, need some advice. I’m an adult, buying a cheap used car for my 16-yr-old. Here is the choice before you:
https://providence.craigslist.org/cto/d/pawtucket-1999-mercedes-benz-e320-4matic/7742991846.html
https://nh.craigslist.org/cto/d/nashua-2012-chevy-impala-lt-167k-miles/7744078375.html
After talking extensively with both sellers & getting appraised by independent shops, here is some additional info:

1. Both of them can be had for, let’s say, a few hundred less than the listed price.
2. The E320’s AC does not work- needs a new condenseinstall/recharge for an already-quoted likely ~$500 bill. No other issues, & recent work is detailed in ad.
3. The Impala needs an ABS sensor, which the owner has already purchased and will wire in prior to sale.

Dare I ask what you think?
View Poll

Cigarettes and rebellion have always gone hand-in-hand, and in an age of cigarette packet-sized health warnings, now more than ever, smoking a fag says: 'I do not give a fuck.' But if Brandon Flowers is hoping to strike a seditious pose by sparking up at the start of the interview, it's not going according to plan. The Killers' frontman is on all fours rooting through the junk that carpets the anteroom at the band's rehearsal space. "Has anyone seen my lighter?" he asks, rocking back on his heels. The question hangs in the air while Brandon cocks his head, waiting for an answer like a meerkat listening for a predator. Twenty-five years old and with a delicate bone structure, there's something almost dainty about him. Receiving no response, he returns to his search. "Oh, Jeez," he sighs. "I had it just a minute ago."
It's a scene that emphatically does not suggest a rebel without a cause. The mess isn't helping. The Killers' HQ - an industrial unit sandwiched between a construction supplier and the offices of a housing development just off Dean Martin Drive in West Las Vegas - is ankle-deep in designer clothing. A Dior Homme suit lies crumpled by the door; there's a pile of shoes topped like a sundae by a pair of Marc Jacobs trainers; and anyone wishing to enter the shoebox room the band use as an office must negotiate a mountain of discarded jeans. Many items are identifiable as coming from the wardrobe of Hot Fuss, The Killers' hugely successful 2004 debut album - triple platinum in the UK with two weeks at Number One and five million sold worldwide. Look! There are the shirts, ties and suit jackets they wore when they thrilled Glastonbury 2005 with indie rock anthems Mr Brightside and Somebody Told Me. That was the crowning moment of a two-and-a-half year tour that finally concluded in October of last year. It seems that after playing that final date in Miami, they returned to Vegas and shrugged off their image onto the floor of this bland white box.
Now a fine layer of dust covers the dead clothes. The Killers have no further use for white tuxedos on their second album, Sam's Town. Today, Brandon wears a black polo shirt, black pin-stripe waistcoat, black jeans and black boots. Where there used to be a layer of foundation, there is now a beard - an untrimmed beard at that. Dave Keuning (30, guitar), Mark Stoermer (29, bass) and Ronnie Vannucci (29, drums) all echo Brandon's black ensemble. Ronnie has added Aviator shades and a handlebar moustache for a dash of motorcycle cop, Dave's frizzy bubble of hair gives him a Marc Bolan-ish air, and there's something very teenage about Mark's scuffed Vans.
Short of walking around wearing sandwich boards saying, "Our new record is a bit heavier than the last one," The Killers couldn't hope to communicate that message more effectively. And they have gained some musical girth on Sam's Town. The pop hooks that made Hot Fuss so irresistible survive intact - see the ringing guitar riffs on first single When You Were Young - but there's a newfound punchiness, coupled with an epic sweep. The minor-to-major uplifts on Bones are fabulously dramatic, the coda to Why Do I Keep Counting? thrillingly intense. Comparisons to Bruce Springsteen have been made. If they overstate the case a little, they are at leaset qualitatively accurate. The Killers are back and this time it's serious - they've got the bootlace ties to prove it.
"Hey, it says here that Springsteen's headlining Glastonbury next year," shouts Ronnie, who's flicking through the NME. He nods sagely at the page without looking up.
"Really?" asks Dave, nicknamed Crazy Dave on account of his alledgedly volatile nature.
"The Boss is headlining one night, we're playing second on the bill the next night and Kylie's headlining the Sunday," says Brandon, charging like a bull through Michael Eavis' as-yet-unannounced line-up with what subsequently proves to be a characteristic gaucheness.
But that lighter is proving elusive. This being America, none of the people hurrying to-and-fro prepping the world for the release of Sam's Town smokes. Manager Robert Reynolds - Bobby Rey to the band - barks into his mobile, booking his band onto eye-wateringly demanding tours. "We're going to make a lot of money," he cackles to himself before switching calls to make a series of stern pronouncements on legal matters. Dave, Mark and Ronnie disappear for a jam session. Artwork is approved, B-sides are decided on and schedules are hammered out.
"I can't find it," Brandon says, finally. But he's not going to be denied the opportunity to underline The Killers reinvention with a puff of smoke. "Let's go to the gas station. I'll have to buy one. It's too busy to talk here anyway."
+
Brandon's black (of course) Volkswagen Touraeg four-wheel drive is barrelling down West Flamingo Road into town. "I was a bell boy there," he says, pointing out of the driver's window at the stucco facade of the Gold Coast casino. "I was working there when we were signed."
Coming from Las Vegas, it is perhaps inevitable that casinos play a big part in The Killers' story; not only is Sam's Town named after one, it was recorded in one, too.
The band began writing songs while on the road with Hot Fuss, turning up early for soundchecks to run through new ideas. On a trip home to Vegas, George Maloof, a hotelier known for cultivating famous friends, invited them to record the album in the new studio he'd built at The Palms, his flagship hotel-cum-gambling den. When the tour finished in October 2005, they returned to Vegas and spent five month finessing the songs they'd sketched out on the road. Then, in February, they decampled to the third floor studio at The Palms and recorded Sam's Town over 11 weeks.
Producer Flood (U2, Depeche Mode) encouraged them to experiment. They overdubbed, fiddled with synthesizers and played with new equipment. It took them five weeks to get the backing vocals right. The band sang the harmonies, then double-tracked them four times. The end result recalls Queen wondering, "Is this is the real life? Is this just fantasy?" When Ronnie, a trained classical percussionist, brought some kettledrums down, eyebrows were raised; but the fabulously bombastic coda on Why Do I Keep Counting? vindicates his indulgence.
"That's kind of the Ben Hur of the album," he says. He's not wrong. Sam's Town is a record on an epic scale. "Yeah, it has drama," he continues. "But, at the same time, I think it's a little more exposed than Hot Fuss. It's a little more naked. Last time it was about a lot of fictional things." By "fictional", Ronnie means that Hot Fuss wore its predominantly British influences for all to see. Brandon's taste in music is rabidly Anglophile - he constantly references The Smiths, The Cure and Joy Division - and it showed. By contrast, Sam's Town is an unequivocally American record. The lyrical imagery is pure American dream - cars, girls, wide-open spaces and escaping to a better life. "We're burning down the highway skyline/On the back of a hurricane that started turning/When you were young," sings Brandon on When You Were Young. That's the basis of the Springsteen comparisons then, though the lack of pathos more closely recalls another blue-collar rocker from New Jersey - Jon Bon Jovi.
The phrase "this town" recurs throughout the album, and it's always receding into the distance as The Killers escape to a new life. "This town was made for passing through/I never did get along with everybody else," sings Brandon on This River Is Wild. On Read My Mind he "never really gave up on breaking out of this two-star town", while on the title track he offers something of an explanation: "Nobody ever had a dream round here."
"With the first record, there was this feeling that there was this world out there that we didn't know," says Mark later in the day. Before The Killers, he studied philosophy: now he's their quiet one. "We wanted to get out and away from this and be somewhere else. We hadn't had a lot of experience - hadn't travelled much - then we were gone for three years. We didn't sit down and say that we wanted to make a record about how we're glad to be home, but that's what happened naturally."
It's not an angsty record. The Killers have already escaped with Hot Fuss, and, having done so, they view the experience fondly now they're back. There's a mistiness to Brandon's eyes as he explains how the album got it's name.
"Sam's Town is a casino on the edge of Vegas," he says. "I grew up in Henderson, which is out on the way to the Hoover Dam. My mom and dad lived in a trailer park, and my dad used to hitchhike up and down Boulder Highway, which is the only way you could get to Vegas. Sam's Town was the first thing you saw on your way in to town. So, when you're driving down Boulder Highway from Henderson, I always thought you finally knew you were getting somewhere when you saw Sam's Town. It was kind of like a beacon."
"It's not a completely American album," contines Brandon. "We still have our English influence, but we're also from the Wild West. Somehow we've managed to unify all that on this album. it's just such a perfect resemblence of what we are."
At the petrol station, Brandon rummages through the glove box looking for change to buy a lighter. "This is a great album," he says, pointing at Highway Companion, the latest from iconic American rocker Tom Petty. "I've always been a big fan of his. He's such a great American artist."
Yes, Brandon: we get the point.
+
When Brandon finally lights his cigarette, he smokes it awkwardly, like a child mimicking something he's seen the grown-ups doing. However, when he cheerfully admits that, "I feel the same mentally as I did when I was 12," it's not a knowing nod to the fact that he sometimes behaves like a loveably precocious child, but a reference to an unusually comprehensive grounding in pop music at an early age.
When Brandon sings about "this town", he doesn't mean Las Vegas. He means Nephi, Utah or Henderson, Nevada, where he spent his childhood. His parents are Mormon and he is the youngest of six children. "I was a surprise," he says. "I've got a 42-year-old sister." If he was issues about his "surprise" status, he chooses to gloss over them. "It turned out perfect because my brother was a teenager when I was a kid," he says. "He would bring home things like Rattle And Hum by U2 and I would watch it. I remember he bought Live In Dallas by Morrissey. It was always him watching these things, or his door was shut and you'd hear The Head On The Door by The Cure blasting through the house and rattling the walls."
The Killers were formed when Brandon answered an advert Dave had placed in a local paper in late 2002. Dave cited Oasis as a big influence; Brandon had seen them play recently and responded; and, as Dave has said in previous interviews: "He was the only person to reply to my ad who wasn't a complete freak." However, the band was born in Brandon's brothers bedroom.
"His room was like a shrine," enthuses Brandon. "It was a holy place. I wish I could show you a picture of it. It was covered in posters. There'd be a big picture of Elvis wearing a bow tie that just said 'The Smiths' [the artwork for The Smiths 1987 single Shoplifters Of The World Unite]. You had The Cure wearing face paint [the artwork to The Cure's 1985 single In Between Days] - all that kind of stuff. I remember Morrissey being on the cover of the NME, with the halo [from 1985] - stuff like that. You just wanted to know about these people 'cause they were so cool. My brother seemed like such a cool person. But he was a teenager, so he wasn't going to be that nice to me, a kid."
Brandon was fascinated by his brother's collection of music, magazines and posters, but he was denied access to them - officially, at least. "I would sneak in," he says. "I knew he'd be angry if he found out, but I would go in as soon as he left the house." For a long time Brandon was too scared to actually play anything. "That didn't come 'til later. I just used to go in there because I liked it. Then I got to the point where I'd actually take a tape out and put it in. It took more guts to do that."
It was a life-changing moment. "I was ten and the first song I played was Sing Your Life by Morrissey. I remember dancing about to it."
The lyrics to Sing Your Life include the lines, "Sing your life/Just walk right up to the microphone/And name all the things that you love/All the things that you loathe." It's intriguing to wonder what Morrissey makes of the neophyte he inspired with these lines.
Eventually, Brandon inherited his brother's tape collection. "It was around the same time CDs started coming out in a big way. He started buying CDs and gave me his tapes. And that was it: it took off from there. I got a hundred of the best albums - all the New Order, all the Morrissey, all The Smiths, The Beatles. I started buying posters. I went to see The Cure in concert. It was just kind of a continuation of my brother. And it was nice because, though my parents were strict, they were already used to it from him. There was no, 'My dad doesn't understand me,' or any of that kind of stuff. My mum likes The Smiths."
Brandon was 13 and his favourite band was late-'70s/early-'80s American new wavers The Cars, and particularly their jaw-droppingly catchy 1979 single Just What I Needed.
"I wouldn't exist without that song," he says. "That was the one. I remember driving around with my mum when I was 13, and we're living in Nephi - a really small town - and I felt so cool when I put that song on. Like: 'I have something that none of these kids I'm going to middle school with tomorrow have.' That excitement is what music's about, isn't it? That's why I understand the mentality of people that don't like us because we've sold so many records. I used to like it when no one else knew about a band. So I get that - I do."
+
Brandon's first band was called Blush Response. It was never going to work out. Not because he refused to move to Los Angeles with them, but because he is utterly - comically - shameless. He's given to making outrageously boastful statements like: "It's not like the '60s, '70s and '80s now. There are only a few bands around that are really good, that just do it. I mean, there's what, five or six of us?"
For the record, in Brandon's estimation, those bands are Franz Ferdinand, Razorlight, The Strokes, The White Stripes, Yeah Yeah Yeahs and, of course, The Killers.
"I don't want people to think I'm lumping myself with other people just to make us sound cool," he says. Really? It sort of sounds like you are. But he just steamrolls through it. "Yeah, but you know what I mean," he says, grinning at his own cheekiness. He's so disgracefully forward you can't help but laugh along with him - Oh you are awful, Brandon! But joking aside, The Killers are the most commercially successful of all the bands he mentions.
Later, back at the rehearsal space, the band run through Sam's Town at deafening volume in preparation for the forthcoming tour - first the US, then the world. The infectious, almost contagious, chorus of When You Were Young sounds fabulous, as do the U2-like guitars and Twin Peaks synths of Read My Mind. Meanwhile, Smile Like You Mean It and Somebody Told Me benefit from the newfound harder edge.
They somewhat heavy-handedly underline the new direction by playing Paranoid by Black Sabbath and Get It On by T Rex. That's the thing: The Killers are not a subtle band. Their songs are like a wet kiss from a girl who's a bit too drunk. They are big and brash, and not everyone loves them for it. Mr Brightside and Somebody Told Me might go down as well at hip nightclubs as they do on the festival circuit, but the DJs play them with the same guilty look they wear when playing a pop record.
"I hate that," says Brandon. "Like writing a song you can hum somehow cheapens it? It makes me think of this quote by Morrissey. Everybody knows how he read Oscar Wilde, Keats and Yates when he was growing up and that he wanted to be a writer. He was talking to this journalist who asked why he hadn't become a writer, and Morrissey said: 'What I do is more powerful than what you do because I can write down these words and you get it to a melody. How can you beat that?' I'm of the same opinion. I don't understand why a good melody that's memorable is a bad thing."
Being dismissed as pop particular aggrieves Ronnie. "When we first came out we got compared to Duran Duran all the time. Jesus Christ! We got a keyboard player now all of a sudden he's Nick Rhodes! Come on!"
"The people who criticise us for being too poppy don't get it," agrees Mark. "I think that's the problem with a lot of rock music. People are afraid to write a song any more. Either that or they can't. And that attitude hurts music in general. The best bands ever have all written great songs. You can still do it and do it intelligently and it can be original. This isn't a studio creation with a producer writing these songs for us. We're not Avril Lavigne, or something like that. We're a real band writing real songs, just like a punk band would do, except that we write pop songs."
You get the impression that The Killers knack for showboating pop hooks that border on vulgar is inextricably tied up with the brazen side of Brandon's personality. But while his ebullient charisma, not to mention the songs themselves, mitigates his outrageousness, there is a less attractive side to his ego. He has a combative streak. He can't resist taking pot shots at emo bands, notably Fall Out Boy, whith whom The Killers share an A&R man.
Has he heard how many emo kids it takes to change a light bulb? "No." None. They just sit in the dark and cry. It's a full 30 seconds before he stops laughing. When he does he admits: "Yeah, we've had problems with other bands. You know, when you walk in the room it's like..." He whistles the theme to The Good, The Bad And The Ugly. "We're like gangs."
And while the other members of the band are diplomatic on the subject of Brandon, you don't have to read too deeply between the lines to conclude that there have been internal issues, too.
"Some people will think Brandon's the big genius," says Dave, visibly bridling. "There are songs, such as Why Do I Keep Counting?, where he's written every note. But there are others, like When You Were Young, that were more of a collaboration - like Mr Brightside, where I had some of the music and Brandon came up with the lyrics. We always have arguments about who wrote what. The truth is that we all help in that process."
When asked how success affected them, Ronnie says: "There were certain things that needed adjusting. When you're on tour for two years, people can get a little needy. It doesn't help that you're surrounded by yes men and everybody's working for you. At times we've had to say, 'Who do you think you are?' to people. No one wears the trousers, but some people would like to. I think if it wasn't for the people in the band kicking each other in the ass... Let's just say there was some ass-kickin'."
It doesn't take a genius to work out whose ass needed kicking most often.
+
It's the following day and The Killers are back at their rehearsal space. The topic of discussion is what to wear in the video for Bones, the second single. It's a big deal: the director is Tim Burton. "I feel like Frank Sinatra when I sing it," announces Brandon. "With maybe a little bit of Morrissey and a little bit of Elvis, too."
Of course he does. But if securing the services of Tim Burton tells you one thing, it's that The Killers are about to get even bigger, perhaps even make the leap to the same level as Coldplay et al. Already stars, they are about to become superstars. Brandon can hardly wait.
"Do you know that Rolling Stone didn't want to put us on the cover last time," he says indignantly. "They didn't think we were stars. We sold five million albums! What more do they want from a band?"
Whatever was required, Brandon would be happy to do most things. "I'll do stuff that some people don't want to do, 'cause I want people to hear the music," he says. However, even he has limits. "The Rolling Stone thing made the record label think: 'What can we do to make them stars?' If I go on vacation with my wife, do they have to send somebody to be there to take pictures of me? Is that how you become a star? I don't want that. I walked down the red carpet one time and I realised I don't like it. But you don't have to walk down the red carpet for people to hear your music. We do still have some of that indie blood running through our veins."
He heads off at a tangent: "When you walk around Liverpool, you think of The Beatles, or you go to Manchester and you think of The Smiths or Oasis. I want you to come to Las Vegas and think of Sam's Town. And I think we've started to capture that, which is a truer version of The Killers, 'cause that's where we're from."
He pauses.
"I used to live across the street from Sam's Town. Maybe it'll be like our Abbey Road where people go to take pictures."
Is that what he'd like?
"I wouldn't mind it," he says, desperately hoping it will come true.
He puts a cigarette between his lips, looks down at his trouser pockets and pats them in search of the lighter he bought yesterday.
"Hey, I don't suppose you've got one?"

For thousands of years, and to this day, Christians of various kinds have tried to demonstrate the truth of Christianity by claiming that Jesus was prophesied about specifically in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is argued that Jesus fulfilled these prophecies about the Messiah in the OT and, therefore, is the promised one. Only Jesus could've fulfilled these Messianic prophecies, so they say. Additionally, Christian theology, building off the NT paradigm of quoting the OT, has claimed that the OT looks forward to the founding of Christianity and the formation of the Church.
What this post will argue is that this is anachronistic and that Christians are incorrect in their claims about the OT. The OT prophets do not look forward to a supposed Messiah figure who would arrive hundreds of years later in 1st century Roman Palestine or that this Messiah figure would crucified and raised from the dead. Nor do they prophesy the establishment of the Christian religion. Instead, the OT looks forward to an imminent, glorious, material restoration of ancient Israel meant to happen in their day, not centuries later when Christianity was founded. Nor is the OT looking forward to supposed events that have yet to happen, like the second coming of Jesus or a future restoration of the land of Israel. These were supposed to happen in ancient Israel but did not occur.
Before I begin, I would like to say that this is the consensus of biblical scholars and historians. This is not just my opinion or the opinion of secular skeptics. All critical scholars of the OT, including Jews, Christians, and non-religious ones, agree that OT needs to be understood in its ancient Israelite context. They agree that these texts and oracles are not about Jesus or the Church. If you want to read an excellent scholarly resource, I highly recommend John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 2018. He is a leading OT scholar at Yale and a Roman Catholic. The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible is also a beneficial resource, giving a critical scholarly introduction and notes to the Hebrew Bible.
For this post, I will look at some of the principal prophetic literature of the OT. I cannot analyze every single relevant passage.

Isaiah

The Book of Isaiah is among the most popular books in ancient Judaism and Christianity. I could be wrong, but I believe it is the most cited book in the NT after Psalms. This is relevant to this discussion because Christians cite many passages in Isaiah, believing them to be predictions about Jesus. This precedent is set in the NT, for example, in Matthew's or Luke's gospel. However, Jesus/Christianity is not prophesied in the book. Instead, Isaiah predicts the imminent restoration of the Kingdom of Israel and the gathering of the twelve tribes.
Let's examine Isaiah 7:14, a passage often misconstrued as a prophecy about Jesus. In reality, it's not a prophecy about the Messiah at all. The passage states, 'Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel.' This is not about a virgin giving a miraculous birth. The word used here is 'almah ', which simply means young woman. If Isaiah intended to convey that this woman was a virgin, there was a word for that, 'betulah '. Matthew's use of the Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14, which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew, as a prophecy about Jesus's virgin birth is a misinterpretation. The context of Isaiah 7 is an oracle of consolation given to King Ahaz, promising him a sign through the birth of a son that Jerusalem will be preserved from the Assyrian crisis.
'For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria. On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the clefts of the rocks and on all the thornbushes and on all the watering holes. On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well.'
So, Isaiah 7:14 refers to the Assyrian crisis in the 8th century BCE and the preservation of Jerusalem, not events that occurred hundreds of years later. Matthew's misquotation of the OT is a clear example of misinterpretation. It's quite ironic and even amusing that the most famous and well-known prophecy about Jesus's virgin birth, cited every year at Christmas, is quite literally not about that. This highlights the importance of understanding the historical context and the original intent of the texts.
There is a cluster of oracles in Isaiah 9-11 that Christians cite as a prophecy about Jesus. But when we look at the context of Isaiah 7-12, we see that these are about the restoration of Zion and the re-establishment of a Davidic king who would rule in the ancient Near East in Israel, not in 1st-century Judea.
Let's look at some of the famous passages.
'For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders, and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Great will be his authority, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. He will establish and uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time onward and forevermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.' 9:6-7
This is not a prophecy about Jesus. The text presupposes that this son is already born and will fulfill this vision in Isaiah's day. Again, the passages surrounding this one set the historical context for fulfillment in the ANE. This Davidic King would preside over the physical restoration of a united Kingdom of Israel and the unification of the twelve tribes.
'On that day, the remnant of Israel and the survivors of the house of Jacob will no longer lean on the one who struck them but will lean on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God. For though your people, O Israel, were like the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will return.' 10:20-22
'On that day, the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples; the nations shall inquire of him, and his dwelling shall be glorious. On that day, the Lord will again raise his hand to recover the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Egypt, from Pathros, from Cush, from Elam, from Shinar, from Hamath, and from the coastlands of the sea.' 11:10-11
The King, through Yahweh, on that day will also,
'raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. ¹³ The jealousy of Ephraim shall depart; the hostility of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not be jealous of Judah, and Judah shall not be hostile toward Ephraim. ¹⁴ But they shall swoop down on the backs of the Philistines in the west; together, they shall plunder the people of the east. They shall put forth their hand against Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites shall obey them.'
So, it's clear what these oracles were intending to describe. Isaiah predicted that after the Assyrian crisis of the 8th century BCE, Yahweh would raise up a Davidic ruler who would preside over a literal Israelite Kingdom that would become the dominant power of the ANE. This was expected to happen in the ancient world, but it did not occur. The historical context of Jesus and the first-century Church is not the fulfillment of these oracles. These oracles are failed. Isaiah's vision of an eternal, glorious Israelite Kingdom did not come to pass.

Jeremiah

There are two passages in Jeremiah I would like to discuss.
Jeremiah 29:10 promises that after 70 years, the Jews will return from the Babylonian exile, and God will restore Israel to its former glory.
'For thus says the Lord: Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place. For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope. Then, when you call upon me and come and pray to me, I will hear you. When you search for me, you will find me; if you seek me with all your heart, I will let you find me, says the Lord, and I will restore your fortunes and gather you from all the nations and all the places where I have driven you, says the Lord, and I will bring you back to the place from which I sent you into exile.'
This never happened historically. Yes, some of the Judeans in exile did return to Israel. Israel was rebuilt with the help of the Persians. But, this was not the glorious restoration predicted by the prophets. Israel would continue to be dominated by foreign powers until the establishment of the secular state of Israel in 1948, which, of course, has no relevance to this ancient oracle. Further, while some Judeans did return, this promise of a gathering of Jews from all the nations did not happen. After the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, Jews have remained permanently dispersed in the diaspora. This is another failed oracle. It cannot be interpreted exegetically as being fulfilled in the 1st century with Jesus and Christianity.
More famously, however, is Jeremiah's prediction of the establishment of a 'New Covenant.' (31:31) Christians see this New Covenant as being fulfilled in the Church, and indeed, the New Testament frequently refers to the New Covenant being fulfilled in the Christian community and Jesus's work. However, the historical context of this passage is surrounded by a cluster of oracles in chapters 30-31 that were meant to be a consolation to ancient Israel. The passage itself is clear that this is not talking about Christianity or events hundreds of years later, but is a word of consolation to Jews who experienced the Babylonian conquest:
'The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.' 31:31
What is the context?
'At that time, says the Lord, I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.' 31:1
'The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes and all the fields as far as the Wadi Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the Lord. It shall never again be uprooted or overthrown.' 31:38-40
'For the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will restore the fortunes of my people, Israel and Judah, says the Lord, and I will bring them back to the land that I gave to their ancestors, and they shall take possession of it' 30:3
Then, it is clear what prophesy about the New Covenant means. It's about the imminent restoration of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and its ascent into power and glory. Again, these oracles remained unfulfilled and precisely falsified.

Micah

There is one famous passage in Micah 5, quoted in Matthew and frequently cited by Christians as "proof" that Jesus's birth location was prophesied about hundreds of years prior. The idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem is, of course, historically dubious. Matthew and Luke's accounts are contradictory and rife with historical problems. Mark and John assume Jesus has always been a native of Nazareth (Mk 6:2-3, Jn 1:46, 7:42). It seems then that Matthew and Luke invented their passages about Jesus being born in Bethlehem to give him more Davidic status. But this is beside the point, even if Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It is not a fulfillment of this passage.
'But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who is one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.' 5:2
What is the historical context of this oracle? Again, the context of the chapter and the book is Israel's restoration and the Israelite kingdom's imminent establishment.
'Then, the remnant of Jacob, surrounded by many peoples, shall be like dew from the Lord, like showers on the grass, which do not depend upon people or wait for any mortal. ⁸ And among the nations the remnant of Jacob, surrounded by many peoples, shall be like a lion among the animals of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, when it goes through, treads down and tears in pieces, with no one to deliver. ⁹ Your hand shall be lifted up over your adversaries, and all your enemies shall be cut off.'
On that day, says the Lord, I will cut off your horses from among you and will destroy your chariots; ¹¹ and I will cut off the cities of your land and destroy all your strongholds; ¹² and I will cut off sorceries from your hand, and you shall have no more soothsayers; ¹³ and I will cut off your images and your pillars from among you, and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands; ¹⁴ and I will uproot your sacred poles^\)g^\) from among you and destroy your towns. ¹⁵ And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance on the nations that did not obey.
What about this future King? Again, I find it amusing that Christians cite this text to show that Jesus fulfilled it. It shows they have not read and understood the historical context of the oracle. The text goes on to say that this King will conquer the land of Assyria, the land of Nimrod.
Micah 5:5–6
'When the Assyrians come into our land and tread upon our soil, we will raise against them seven shepherds and eight rulers. They shall rule the land of Assyria with the sword and the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword; he shall rescue us from the Assyrians if they come into our land or tread within our border.'

Conclusion

I've, of course, been very selective. There are many more examples of this that could've been pulled from. I hope you will see what I've briefly tried to show. The Prophets of the OT predicted that in their own time, they would see the salvation of Yahweh as their God. A Davidic King would be raised, and Israel would be restored to glory after the Assyrian crisis in the case of Isaiah or the Babylonian crisis in the case of Jeremiah and Micah. The same goes for the other prophets. My thesis, then, is that historically understood, not only did these oracles fail in their prediction, but they are demonstrably not about events in 1st century Roman Palestine or the wider Greco-Roman world. They're not about establishing the Church or a dying and rising messiah figure who brings spiritual salvation. Yes, the NT does interpret passages in the OT as being fulfilled in Jesus. But they are taken out of their historical context. The NT and early Christians were not novel in this practice. This was standard Jewish exegesis of the OT. Because Christians and Jews believed that the OT writings were sacred scripture that couldn't be wrong, they reinterpreted them in the light of their situations. The Essenes at Qumran, like the early Christians, also thought that their community and Teacher of Righteousness was the fulfillment of the bible prophecy, and the Rabbis in the Rabbinic literature frequently apply ancient scripture to their community.