‘The Opera House of service stations’: Heritage plan for West Gate canopies

• BE ADVISED EVERY SINGLE POINT COUNTS!
• Realistically you are okay and should not flip out with a 3.94 GPA to this is just being used as a clear example. Just remember that if you keep a high GPA that you are saving yourself a mental breakdown before taking a TEAs.
  • Be sure to get the extra points as well if you know you don't have perfect stats. This will greatly improve your odds at getting in, especially for Fall applicants.

• Here is an example with a 3.8GPA [20(4-3.8)*3] = [20(.2)*3] = 4*3 = 12, this means (excluding extra points), you need to score at least a 96% if a kid with a 4.0 got a 84% on their TEAs.
  • For understanding the 20 comes from the calculation 10 (to make the solution a whole number) multiplied by 2 (because the GPA is multiplied by two in the impaction score calculation) and the 3 comes from the fact each .1 of a GPA equates to 3% of a persons TEAs score (1/30 = .033333*3 = .1). The 20 contains the multiplication factor of 2 already so we don't need to multiply 3 by 2 as well.

• As a SJSU student you have 2 opportunities to get in, once in Fall (a little more difficult as most SJSU students are on track so there are more of you) and Spring (a little easier just because there are less Pre-Nursing majors applying). So if you don't get in for the Fall and your stats are good, you have a great chance in the Spring
  • PS if you do get declined for the Fall get all the extra bumps you can and if you still have one more TEAs opportunity, TAKE IT AGAIN! If you get waitlisted for Fall there is a really good chance you will get in for Spring as the people you were originally going against are gone.

• If you are immediately declined from the school, that means that currently they were unable to offer you a seat. However, this does not mean that you are out yet. The school has an original waitlist and if that gets ran though they create another backup waitlist in case more students drop in the summer. This contains around 12 more students and you could be apart of this group.

• Nursing Apps open January 17th for Fall and August 17th for Spring and they both close on the 15th the following month
• If you are a current SJSU student you do not need to apply for SJSU again prior to applying
• However many units a course is will impact your GPA differently (more units means more of your GPA)
• You get about One Week to accept SJSU. SJSU is one of the latest schools to send out acceptance letters so be prepared to wait. 8 Weeks after the deadline is when acceptance letter should begin to roll out.
• Acceptances are sent out around April 10th for Fall and November 10th for Spring.

• DM me if you want a google doc with TEAs information (it won't let me put it here) it provides, in my opinion, the best ways to study for the TEAs. For me personally I only received a 93.3 but, if I had realized how vital one of the sources before I took the test the next day, I would have performed even better! Please give this a look. If you dont want you I'll put the order of importance here without links
  • 1 Quizlets, #2 the ATI website, #3 Miscellaneous Prep Tests (I provide links in the doc), #4 PocketPrep

• Submit all documents separate from each other
• The application pool is Not Rolling meaning you can apply at any time before the deadline and still not be penalized
• Whatever work experience you have will not change the size of the score bump i.e a hospital volunteer will get the same size bump as a person with a CNA.
  • You also do not need any letters of recommendation and don't need to fill out any extra information on the NursingCAS website for SJSU specifically. They will not read any paragraphs that are not relevant to you getting accepted.
• AP credit does not affect the GPA it is solely for credit. If the AP course is not listed on your transcript then you must submit a form proving you passed the exam in the "other" section.
  • Make sure that all your documents that need to be there are there and they will be seen and accounted for. Regardless of where you put the documents the will show up on the application.
• Download you application prior to submitting your application (they will let you do this after you finished all the documents uploading and are preparing to finalize). Look over everything to ensure it's all correct.

The Events after the Fall of Phnom Penh and the Programme of Khieu Samphan, the Peasantry and the Enablers of Capital
With the end of the Indochina war in 1975, not much remained of Cambodia’s economy either. More than half of the rice fields lay fallow, and the few industrial enterprises, the port facilities in Kampong Som, the railway lines and the bridges had been destroyed by US bombs. Although the figures are not unambiguous, their magnitude alone shows what heavy blood sacrifice imperialism also demanded of this people: In the five years of war, around 800,000 people were killed, more than 40,000 were maimed, almost 200,000 were wounded.
The constant flow of refugees inflated the capital from its original population of around 600,000 to over 3 million, meaning that by the end of the war almost half of the Khmer people were crammed into their metropolis. As is well known, the imperialist world press howled in horror and disgust when it learned of the forced exodus of this human aggregation. The US bombardment drove people from the countryside into the cities – the revolutionary nationalists had to force them back. Both actions were cruel and devastating for those affected, because both times they happened under terrible conditions, the first time under the imperialist hail of bombs and the coercion of its local police, the second time under the pressure of hunger and the state coercion of the newly installed revolutionary patriotic power. But for the imperialist propaganda machine there were no connections here. Of course, it only saw the terror of the Khmer Rouge, so supposedly of Communism. Here again was a wonderful opportunity to play out the bourgeois farce of humanism and love of one’s neighbour to the full. No mention of the mass murders in the imperialist war against the Southeast Asian peoples, no mention of the unspeakable destruction of these only weakly industrialised agrarian societies. These sacrifices were noticed at most when the insane war spending of the USA threatened to drag the entire imperialist West into the vortex of economic problems as a result of the currency crises caused by it. After all, to this day, these gentlemen are consistently proud of their efforts to preserve “freedom”.
Cambodia became the main object of these friends of mankind over the next few years. Here, indeed, all cherished values and conceptions were thrown overboard. A state without money, without postal services, without cars and motorbikes, without public transport, without telephones, television, books and the cities extinct. Only “communists” could have committed this crime; as is well known, they can be trusted with anything inhumane and in Cambodia they truly acted as the incarnation of “darkness” and “evil”. What was perpetrated before in the name of the heroes of “light” and “reason” – not a word about that, of course. It was a central organ of the imperialist offensive on the human intellect – Reader’s Digest – that first announced in 1977 that at least 1.2 million people had been murdered in the two years since the fall of Phnom Penh. Ever new figures were quickly added, which journalists claimed to have learned from the numerous refugees. It is not necessary to assume that all these reports were forgeries, because in fact the Khmer Rouge set an extremely radical course from the beginning, which certainly brought much horror, misery and also deaths. But today’s sated imperialists should perhaps sometimes look at the history books: What misery, what terror, what torment against the population is archived there – and that over centuries. The French Revolution also produced at least 100,000 deaths in the most important four years – and it did so with a machine specially designed for the purpose. It was not by chance that it was the steam engine and the guillotine that inaugurated the industrial age in a revolutionary way. But do the distinguished British gentlemen, who even then scoffed at these butchers in Paris, have fewer lives on their consciences? Those who still don’t know have to have it written on their cheat sheets all the time: The establishment of bourgeois rule has always been brutal and extremely bloody. The destruction of the traditional smallholder form of economy, the annihilation of small-scale trade and crafts always passed over those affected like a merciless steamroller. And under unspeakable tortures, the majority of these people who were expropriated without compensation were pressed into the factories and, if necessary, forced by brutal violence to slave as many hours of their day as possible for the lowest possible wages. All that was not so long ago. But it is always amusing how hastily today’s representatives of capital pretend that these are youthful sins of foreign predecessors. And this process of constant dressing for factory labour, of the destruction of both man and nature, continues both in depth and in breadth. It will only come to an end when this capitalist basis has been revolutionarily annihilated because of the contradictions it constantly produces.
...
However, if one wants to understand the “mysterious” processes in Cambodia, one has to be clear above all about the material and social conditions. A devastated country that was still largely worked by small peasants; a chaotically bloated capital city to which the majority of these same peasants had fled. The terror of the bombs had charged this population, once peaceful and living in the eternal grind of farm labour, with fear, but above all with unbridled rage and blind hatred. Hatred against the city in which they had to take refuge, anger against the American bombers which destroyed their existence, but particularly anger against their own corrupt aristocracy, the military as well as the city dwellers in general who sought to prolong their raison d’être by making a pact with imperialism. Now the old mixture of foreignness, subservient spirit and unease found its general discharge in a primal hatred of the rural population for their oppressors in the cities. A frenzy of revenge arose, which certainly accounted for most of the brutalities in the first year of liberation.
In order to understand this social side of this revolution in Cambodia, which gave it the ferocious expression of blood, revenge and chaos that one encounters in practically every revolution carried out mainly by peasants, one must always bear in mind the social structure already described. The strong urban-rural divide was not between agriculture and industry – the latter was practically non-existent – but it was the extreme contrast between agriculture and all the ominous trades that bourgeois statistics usually classify under the heading of “services”. Here, actually “unproductive” administration and trade – moreover, predominantly created and nourished in the service of imperialism – and “productive” agriculture faced each other. Of the “peace population” in Phnom Penh of about 600,000, this included about 200,000 Vietnamese and over 100,000 Chinese, out of a total of about 800,000. So the Cambodians did not even make up the majority of the population in their capital. Aristocracy and officials on one side, poor peasants on the other, too poor to make a living in the countryside, coming to the city because they hoped for a job, or later bombed into it. Cambodians were almost completely excluded from the trade and merchant sectors. These sectors were mainly in the hands of the Chinese and Vietnamese.
In this approaching whirlwind of social unrest on the part of the peasants, which is growing in strength, another social force tries for its survival. Young intellectuals, most of them educated in Paris, the educational centre of the former colonial ruler, want to break the corrupt tangle of local aristocracy and foreign power by force. Without any reservoir in the own ranks of the urban bourgeoisie, for the latter is practically non-existent and if it is, then hardly to be enthused for nationalist accumulation programmes with a more rigorous cut; without a proper bourgeois class, these petty-bourgeois radicals lead a practically hopeless struggle for change. Forced very soon into the rural underground by Sihanouk’s authoritarian regime, they try to implement their programme of industrialisation based on agriculture with the help of the only social class that counts – namely the rural population, the small peasants and farm workers.
...
One simply has to quote these illuminating passages of the Khmer Rouge’s “chief ideologist” at length, because after all the imperialist wailing, one probably does not think it possible that these “monsters” can think at all. (A Trotskyist group, persistent in its obtuseness, even opined that these “monsters” were the embodiment of… a return to feudalism!) One thing is immediately quite clear: these petty-bourgeois intellectuals, widely referred to as Marxists, communists, etc., are never ever in the tradition of the “German” Karl Marx, but of the German Friedrich List, who, under the slogan “Freedom is the goal, limitation is the necessity”, set his protectionist credo against the imperialist ideology of the free traders in the last century. The Khmer Rouge leaders are thus spiritual sons of the ancestors of today’s imperialists, those imperialists who now see in them the personified devil of communism, although they only wanted to be flesh of their flesh.
These views of Samphan and thus the leaders of the Khmer Rouge were also quoted at length because they are so popular today. In the face of the growing exploitation of the countries of the so-called Third World by Western imperialism, theories are emerging everywhere that vehemently propose the same position of “cutting off” the “underdeveloped” countries from the dominance of the world market ruled by Western capital as a panacea. And it is certainly no coincidence that one of the main representatives of these academic “revolutionaries”, the Egyptian Samir Amin, raves about the radicalism of the Khmer Rouge even after their expulsion and predicts a chain of new “Kampucheas” for the African future. Against the massive reality of the increasing internationalisation of capital and the growing global control of Western and increasingly Eastern imperialism, such “progressive” petty-bourgeois theorists place their faith in autarky, national accumulation and so-called autocentric development. Against the capitalist propaganda of progress and prosperity through freedom of trade and capital investment, which in reality in fact produces nothing but growing pauperisation and exploitation, the Good News on the other side says: Only if one can free oneself from imperialism at least for as long as it takes to be able to develop one’s productive forces independently, only then will one achieve prosperity and security for humanity.
In this respect, both sides represent only two sides of the same coin. Both claim to be able to achieve “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” within the framework of and through capitalism – as the forefather of these bourgeois tendencies, Adam Smith, already formulated this elementary lie of capital.
...
The utopians of capital have to acknowledge time and again that, contrary to their proclamations, the social antagonisms both within the “developed” and “underdeveloped” countries and between these countries are becoming increasingly acute. And while capitalism is pushing the development of the productive forces ever more sharply in order to satisfy its insatiable hunger for surplus value, it is precisely because of this highly productive technology that it is less and less able to transform the pauperised masses into active proletarians, i.e. to force them to the machines or into the office. While the imperialists, in their frenzied mania for surplus value, are at least throwing the whole world into growing unrest and undermining ancestral immobile relations ever more thoroughly, the heralds of an apparently radical autarky are causing nothing but confusion in the ranks of the pauperising masses. They talk of economic independence, stable economic cycles and adapted technology – all concepts that really bring out their illusionist anachronism.
And to see Cambodia of all places as a concrete approach or even an example for the feasibility of such utopias seems almost tragicomic in view of the results that are now available. But it is also a total misreading of the factual development under the Pol Pot government. Demonisation and idealisation of the Khmer Rouge have the same basis. They assume that the measures taken after the conquest of power in Cambodia were deliberate and planned. One side sees only the terror and coercive measures with which the leaders, supported by relatively small armed forces, tried to get a grip on a witch’s cauldron of panic and violence and to escape the total catastrophe of starvation – and the chaos that would ensue in turn. They see this terror and these coercive measures as completely detached from the economic and social emergency. The others confuse the factual state of extreme social backwardness in Cambodia and the emergency measures taken with an economic and social programme.
...
We have outlined the devastating situation in Cambodia shortly before the moment of liberation. However broad and deep the peasant unrest in the countryside may have been at the time, it must be remembered that a large proportion of these peasants stayed in the capital out of necessity during the main phase of the fighting. In any case, the Khmer Rouge, hardly more than 70,000 men anyway, fought for a long time mainly in the sparsely populated outskirts of Cambodia.
When the Khmer Rouge troops approached the capital in 1975 – likely with only about 20,000 men – it soon became clear that it was imperative to deal radically with this hopelessly bloated big head. Estimates vary, but it can be assumed that of the 7-8 million Cambodians, at least 2.5, but probably over 3 million were crammed into the capital (“peace population” as mentioned 600,000). With the severing of the umbilical cord to imperialism, Phnom Penh was up in the air as its former bridgehead. There was no possibility whatsoever to control or even feed this veritable hell of collaborators and starving refugee masses. The general shortage of rice had driven prices to dizzying heights: from 10 riel per kilo in December 1971 to 125 riel in December 1973 and on to 300 riel in early 1975, reaching a record 340 riel in mid-February. The retreat of the imperialists and the advance of the Khmer Rouge must have acted as a double signal: On the one hand, to storm against the hated parasites and the urbanites in general, on the other hand, to return to the countryside in chaos. The Khmer Rouge had to evacuate the city and channel the returning flow to avoid a total catastrophe. The fact that the displaced people left a wide trail of blood behind them on their way out of the city (for the time of the Khmer Rouge government, there is consistent talk of at least 1 million deaths) was unavoidable under the given conditions. It is significant that the majority of the massacres affected the urban population and certain national minorities: precisely intellectuals, military officers of the old Lon Nol regime, Sihanoukists, capitalists, merchants etc., and apart from the Cham (Muslims) almost exclusively the Vietnamese and Chinese minorities, whose social situation we have already pointed out.
Whether it was spontaneous peasant terror or executions organised by the Khmer Rouge, it was partly revolutionary violence against the supporters of the old regime, which as such does not speak against but for the Khmer Rouge, and partly pogroms, which the leaders at most accepted and tried to direct in the interests of the state monopoly on the use of force. But it is not so important whether the Khmer Rouge leaders had to accept or order these massacres. What is decisive is that they were forced by material development to eliminate or to have eliminated precisely those strata on which they wanted to rely. This, together with the evacuation of the cities, deprived them of any social support other than the peasantry. Thus they were at the mercy of this peasantry, which had to be disciplined for the actualisation of their “programme”. The conflict with it was therefore programmed for the time after the famine had been averted.
...
After the worst of the chaos had been overcome, it was attempted to use these structures, which had prevailed in a rather primitive way during the hunger phase, for one’s “industrialisation programme” by maintaining and further intensifying collectivisation. Necessity was to become a capitalist virtue. The complete lack of such “civilisational” achievements as the intercourse of money and commodities was supposed to make for an ideal, indeed classic, “truck system”, i.e. payment in kind alone. The peasants were forced into ever new production battles, because now surpluses were to be produced for export – i.e. for exchange with foreign means of production – which indeed happened and animated the leaders even further. The general command was under the iron slogan: “Work hard and try to achieve maximum results with a minimum of investment”, and the focus was on absolute labour effort.
...
Once a sufficient level of production had been restored, however, the whole construction was bound to collapse completely sooner rather than later. Anyone who has even a pale inkling of the travails of the infamous Stalinist collectivisation in Russia – and the Russian state was on an incomparably higher social level and had quite different means of power at its disposal – can easily imagine how the intellectual would-be enablers of capitalism in Cambodia, then practically hanging in the air, would have to perish in an orgy of violence – unless, with the help of a foreign power, they could get a grip on the chaos and create more stable conditions through a series of concessions to the peasantry. Most likely, however, they would be finished even then, like a man trying to hold on as long as possible to a wildly thrashing bull and then falling to the ground exhausted. In any case, the arena crowd was already eagerly awaiting the outcome of the tragedy.
...
Sovereignty, neutrality, non-alignment – this credo runs through all declarations as a complement to “autarky”. But already in the face of the first offensive by the Vietnamese, it must have slowly become clear to the Khmer Rouge leaders that these fine words could only have one meaning in our unpleasant world, namely to place themselves under the protection of the People’s Republic of China. In Pol Pot’s interview, which we have just quoted, a strange acronym appears: CPK. This means “Communist Party of Kampuchea”. And yet, to the boundless amazement of bourgeois commentators, the Khmer Rouge had never tried to dress up their declarations or their constitution with Marxist or pseudo-Marxist vocabulary – which is certainly very sympathetic to us. On the contrary, they have displayed an obvious and pedantic aversion to these concepts. Neither “vanguard of the proletariat” or “communist party” nor “proletarian internationalism”, neither “classless society” nor “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but also not “new democratic revolution”, “mass line”, “creation of a new man”, “peaceful coexistence” etc. etc. had ever been spoken of. If similar contents had to be expressed, they were paraphrased with other words. But this did not happen because the Pol Pot folks would have been particularly honest and wanted to do us Marxists a favour. This happened because in their dogged nationalism they wanted to distance themselves clearly from their neighbours Vietnam, but also China, who professed to be “socialist”. The national character of all these revolutions and states, the national character of their confrontations and of their whole politics is expressed even in the fact that the weakest link feels compelled by the instinct of self-preservation to dispense with the “Marxist” or “socialist” cloak for the capitalist programme! This is what “socialism in one country” has come to! And the adoption of the “Marxist” “vocabulary” here is a sign of the surrender of the so sacred national sovereignty. If, as already mentioned, no announcement had ever mentioned a party or revolutionary phases (there was always talk of a “revolutionary organisation” and even of “Angkor traditions”), Pol Pot told his astonished people and all those who wanted to know the following story on 27 September 1977: the CPK had already existed in Cambodia since 30 September 1960 and had achieved this miracle of a national-democratic revolution. He told it the day before he left for Beijing, on which, fighting a losing battle against the Vietnamese, he has been completely dependent ever since.
As a “plaything of foreign powers”, the nationalist intellectuals of Cambodia perished. The peasantry, largely decimated under the pressure of the imperialist frenzy and its consequences, as now under the pressure of Vietnam’s national expansion, is an example of the fate that capitalist society reserves for small and weak peoples in its emergence and development. To such peoples the proletariat alone would and will secure the right of self-determination, because unlike the bourgeoisie it does not seek national privileges but wants to abolish them, because unlike the bourgeoisie it can create voluntary union, because unlike the bourgeoisie it liberates itself not by exploiting others but by abolishing all exploitation.

What opinion essays should include:

• introduction
  
• thesis statement = your main argument
  
• body parahraphs
  
• counterarguments (if needed)
  
• conclusion
  

• I bought a proxmark3 rdv4 as part of a kit which also comes with several of its accessories from an online website selling these kinds of things.
• When I received it, I noticed several smudges on the device itself and the cards that came with it where scratched up to severely, which immediately alarmed me but I really tried to brush it off to just being caused by the manufacturing process.
• Three days after first receiving it, it completely died on me during usage. And showed no signs of life whatsoever.
• Naturally contacted the online website’s support and explained the situation, and they responded asking me to try some troubleshooting steps to try to isolate the issue and potentially fix it remotely, all of which didn’t work.
• Hence they offered to look into it themselves by having me send it back to them.
• However, I insisted on returning the full kit back for a full refund as it is no longer fit for purpose due to both being defective and the fact that I wouldn’t trust a replacement either to not fail the same way now that I experienced this. And since this was 3 days since receiving it, and even 4 days since placing the purchase, it was well within the 14 days period the Consumer Rights Act 2015 allows for. Hence I asked them to just return the full kit for a full refund instead.
• Yet they (or shoud I say he as it turns out this “company” is actually just one person) refused and said since I now opened it I am no longer eligible for a refund and kept insisting that sending it back for repaireplacement was my only option. (Which is nonsense as how was I supposed to even know it was defective if I didn’t open it!!!). They even went as far as stating their ToS also states that defective items aren’t eligible for a refund even if they are within the 14 day period (which is also nonsense as even their own ToS states that you can return faulty items for a full refund within 14 days. And either way the Consumer Rights Act 2015 gives me this right regardless of what their ToS say).
• Then things started getting even more suspicious with this sellecompany. They started ignoring my emails stating my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and just resending the same email asking me if I accept to return it for a repair or replacement. Obviously I was not going to say yes as then they will use that against me and say I accepted to not get a refund but have it replaced instead.
• So having paid by PayPal, it seemed straightforward. Just open up a dispute, explain the situation clearly and upload evidence. Which is exactly what I did.
• Then through the PayPal disputes seller-buyer chat you get when first opening a dispute to try to sort things out together first, the seller again insisted on this whole ToS nonsense and then asked for the item back and provided a returns address but wouldn’t provide a returns label unless I accepted not to get a refund (again, not going to say yes to that). So what I did was instead return it under my own dime through Royal Mail Special Guarantee so there’s clear evidence. And uploaded the tracking details to the dispute.
• Item gets delivered with proof of delivery and a signature and everything (because I thankfully decided to send it special guarantee), yet the seller kept asking for it back and not acknowledging that it’s already been delivered. (Even more suspicious!).
• And when I clearly stated even the tracking showing proof of delivery and everything, suddenly the story changed and the seller now has it back… and then things got even more interesting.
• The seller went above and beyond straight up making false statements claiming I damaged and modified the item (which I didn’t do). And the funny thing is, not only is what he was saying contradicting with the manufacturer’s own instructions, but his false allegations even contradict themselves! For example, he said the device outer cover is sealed and that I broke the seal and forced the cover open against the manufacturer’s usage instructions. Yet then claimed the tool which is INCLUDED in the box by the manufacturer specifically to open the casing showed signs of usage. Anyone with a brain without even knowing a thing about the device would instantly realize: Why would the manufacturer seal a device and not condone opening it yet include a tool specifically to do exactly that? And to add to that, the reason why you would open the outer casing is to access a SIM slot under there, which you then plug an also INCLUDED SIM-SAM adapter to that slot to use it… hence again, why would the manufacturer include an adapter in the box which can’t even be used without opening the plastic cover. And mind you all of these are part of the main device box, these aren’t the additional accessories that also came with the kit. Hence none of these could have possibly been aftermarket things not recommended by the manufacturer. See how even someone who doesn’t know anything about the device can instantly tell how these allegations conflict with each other? And to add to that, the seller also claimed that I admitted that I flashed aftermarket software to the device and that the device failed immediately after, and pointed towards one of my emails who he previously claimed he never received (again! Super obvious lie!). Yet that wasn’t what I even said, I said that I updated it to the latest version exactly as the manufacturer getting started docs instruct you to, and it was working fine (hence the failure did not occur after the update!) and the failure only happened 3 days later while I was just reading one of the included NFC cards (yes, one of the ones scratched). Hence again, more clear lies.
• So at that point I clearly explained exactly how his lies conflict each other and conflict with the manufacturer instructions and supplied proof as well with manufacturer documentation and the full terminal log showing all of the things I did and commands I ran with the device, and escalated the claim for PayPal to review.
• PayPal despite saying they will provide a verdict in 5 days, took weeks and them suddenly asked me to provide a police report. Yet when contacting the local police they said they don’t deal with these kind of things (which I expected), so now I am being asked for something that the police don’t even provide. Gave the PayPal customer service a call and explained that… and they rudely just kept repeating that I have to provide that or else my case will be closed in the seller’s favor.
• After looking around I found the action fraud website so reported the incident there and thankfully the report letter you get after submitting mentions it being a police service, hence that would definitely work. So I went ahead and supplied that to the dispute and again it said they will provide a verdict within 5 days. This time they took even longer than last time and after keeping me on my toes for possibly a month+ they just simply rejected the claim saying I modified/damaged the item effectively blindly siding with the seller despite the clear lies and despite the clear explanation and evidence I supplied showing that.
• So I appealed the decision and this time re-wrote the full explanation and evidence in case it wasn’t clear the first time and emphasized everything and made sure it was super clear with numbered bullet points and everything. Yet again they took their time and kept me waiting for weeks, eventually rejecting the appeal too for the same reason. (Clearly they couldn’t be bothered to even read a work I said nor even use any brain cells to see how obvious the lies are from the seller).
• Once your appeal gets rejected then there’s no way to re-open the dispute anymore nor create a new one. So rang the PayPal support again and explained the situation and after the agent looked at the dispute even he agreed that the sellers lies were as clear as day and that my explanation and evidence further proves that, and was confused as to why it got rejected. So he said he will escalate to their head office and I should receive a response in 3 working days. And I immediately asked him: They rejected it twice already and blindly sided with the seller, wouldn’t they just do the same? And he assured me that the head office is a different team from the team that handled the dispute.
• Over 2 weeks later… and I still haven’t heard back from anyone. So I gave them another ring. This time the agent that I got straight up started blaming me for “modifying” the item and saying the same nonsense and after straight up going over how all of them are lies (the same way I went over that twice already in my dispute and appeal, but this time I could actually say it verbally in real time to him as it was a phone call), he kept coming up with random nonsense excuses like saying PayPal disputes don’t handle defective items (which is nonsense) and then also went on saying that since the failure occurred 3 days after and not immediately it’s also not covered (again, nonsense), so I reminded him of my rights under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and he went on saying but that’s not what they PayPal ToS says, and I also reminded him of the signs of usage I also clearly mentioned in the dispute and appeal hence even the item wasn’t as described as it was advertised as new (which in itself entitles me to a full refund even if the device hadn’t failed) and I straight up told him PayPal operates in the UK and all UK laws apply to them and they can’t legally deny my rights regardless of what their ToS says (and by the way, nowhere in the ToS either was it saying anything this guy was claiming). So regardless of what I kept saying he just kept coming up with excuses and nonsense so I knew that phone call was going nowhere. He even went as far as saying that I should resolve this with the seller directly (AS IF I HAVENT BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT FROM THE BEGINNING TO NO AVAIL WHICH IS WHY I HAD TO FILE A DISPUTE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!).
• At that point I had reached a dead end as the seller wasn’t cooperating, PayPal was blindly siding with him regardless of what I did, and to top this off and I couldn’t even file a dispute with my bank as I had used my card from my home country, and apparently when I spoke to them they said they don’t even file disputes unless the item simply hasn’t arrived (which in itself is just stupid on top of all of the stupidity I have faced so far).
• So now I was out £509.99 for the kit, plus the £7.65 I paid out of pocket for postage to return it (which honestly I could have written off if I would have at least gotten the money for the kit refunded), and now I don’t even have the device nor the whole kit as that’s been returned to the seller. So I am out both the money and the kit. And the seller gets to keep the whole kit and probably scam someone else with it as well, plus gets to keep the money.
• So I now filed a case with the financial ombudsman as it been wayyyyyyyyyyyy over 8 weeks and PayPal still hasn’t resolved this nor even wants to (thankfully didn’t need a final response letter due to how long it’s taken otherwise that in itself would have been a nightmare to try to get from PayPal judging by my experience with them so far). But I am honestly not hopeful at all as I have never my life ever won an ombudsman case, as they always blindly side with the company (yes, the same way PayPal blindly sided with the seller), hence no wonder companies confidently refer you to them because they know you probably won’t win.

• Sometimes all my pods get killed off and recreated at the same time for no real reason. The nodes have not been pre-empted so I can only assume it is some control plane level problem (maybe my fault for being cheap and not using HA control plane). This happens quite regularly, I would say on average twice a day.
• When the pods are recreated sometimes volume appear to be stuck and will not reattach to the new pod.

kubectl --kubeconfig=~/k8s/rpt-k8s-rxt-spot.yml describe pod registry-5b988bff79-4jdlf Name: registry-5b988bff79-4jdlf Namespace: default Priority: 0 Service Account: default Node: prod-instance-1713578082/104.130.31.174 Start Time: Fri, 17 May 2024 07:07:59 +0100 Labels: app=registry pod-template-hash=5b988bff79 Annotations:  Status: Pending IP: IPs:  Controlled By: ReplicaSet/registry-5b988bff79 Containers: registry: Container ID: Image: registry:latest Image ID: Port:  Host Port:  State: Waiting Reason: ContainerCreating Ready: False Restart Count: 0 Environment: REGISTRY_AUTH: htpasswd REGISTRY_AUTH_HTPASSWD_REALM: Container Registry REGISTRY_AUTH_HTPASSWD_PATH: /valib/registry/htpasswd Mounts: /valib/registry from repo-vol (rw) /varun/secrets/kubernetes.io/serviceaccount from kube-api-access-8dbqf (ro) Conditions: Type Status Initialized True Ready False ContainersReady False PodScheduled True Volumes: repo-vol: Type: PersistentVolumeClaim (a reference to a PersistentVolumeClaim in the same namespace) ClaimName: registry-pvc ReadOnly: false kube-api-access-8dbqf: Type: Projected (a volume that contains injected data from multiple sources) TokenExpirationSeconds: 3607 ConfigMapName: kube-root-ca.crt ConfigMapOptional:  DownwardAPI: true QoS Class: BestEffort Node-Selectors:  Tolerations: node.kubernetes.io/not-ready:NoExecute op=Exists for 300s node.kubernetes.io/unreachable:NoExecute op=Exists for 300s Events: Type Reason Age From Message ---- ------ ---- ---- ------- Normal Scheduled 6m53s default-scheduler Successfully assigned default/registry-5b988bff79-4jdlf to prod-instance-1713578082 Warning FailedMount 20s (x3 over 4m51s) kubelet Unable to attach or mount volumes: unmounted volumes=[repo-vol], unattached volumes=[repo-vol kube-api-access-8dbqf]: timed out waiting for the condition Warning FailedAttachVolume 11s (x11 over 4m27s) attachdetach-controller AttachVolume.Attach failed for volume "pvc-e41d83d2-2184-482e-b1a6-1f4ab405b46b" : rpc error: code = Internal desc = [ControllerPublishVolume] failed to attach volume: Volume "024515e5-a7e9-444b-879f-b82951540eaa" failed to be attached within the alloted time 

1. What does the acronym PIPES stand for?
   
   • A. Public Investment in Private Equity
   • B. Private Investment in Public Equity
   • C. Primary Investment in Public Equity
   • D. Private Investment in Private Equity
   • Correct Answer: B. Private Investment in Public Equity
2. In a PIPES transaction, who typically invests in the company's publicly traded stock?
   
   • A. Retail investors
   • B. Accredited investors
   • C. Government entities
   • D. Institutional investors
   • Correct Answer: D. Institutional investors
3. Which document must companies file with the SEC when raising capital through a nonpublic offering under Regulation D?
   
   • A. Form S-1
   • B. Form 10-K
   • C. Form D
   • D. Form 8-K
   • Correct Answer: C. Form D
4. What is one key characteristic of private placement stock?
   
   • A. It is freely tradable on the open market.
   • B. It must be registered with the SEC.
   • C. It is restricted and often carries a legend.
   • D. It is exempt from all federal regulations.
   • Correct Answer: C. It is restricted and often carries a legend.
5. Under Regulation D, what is the maximum number of nonaccredited investors allowed in a private placement?
   
   • A. 10
   • B. 25
   • C. 35
   • D. 50
   • Correct Answer: C. 35
6. Which rule under Regulation D allows for general solicitation and advertising of private placements?
   
   • A. Rule 504
   • B. Rule 505
   • C. Rule 506(b)
   • D. Rule 506(c)
   • Correct Answer: D. Rule 506(c)
7. What is required for a business to solicit or advertise its private placement under Rule 506(c)?
   
   • A. All purchasers must be accredited investors.
   • B. The offering must be registered with the SEC.
   • C. There is no need to verify investor accreditation.
   • D. The offering must be limited to nonaccredited investors.
   • Correct Answer: A. All purchasers must be accredited investors.
8. Why might a company choose to use a PIPES transaction?
   
   • A. To raise capital quickly without public disclosure requirements.
   • B. To avoid SEC registration entirely.
   • C. To offer securities to retail investors.
   • D. To comply with all public offering regulations.
   • Correct Answer: A. To raise capital quickly without public disclosure requirements.
9. What type of investor typically participates in a PIPES offering?
   
   • A. Individual retail investors
   • B. High-net-worth individuals and institutional investors
   • C. Government bodies
   • D. Nonprofit organizations
   • Correct Answer: B. High-net-worth individuals and institutional investors
10. What term is used to describe the documentation that includes the terms and conditions of a private placement?
    
    • A. Prospectus
    • B. Offering Circular
    • C. Annual Report
    • D. SEC Filing
    • Correct Answer: B. Offering Circular