I compiled these a long time ago in response to a relevant article about St. Chrysostom. I'm posting them here again since several people since then said they were immensely helpful and that they merit a post of their own. Feel free to discuss them and post other Church Father's social teaching in the comments below.

You eat in excess. Christ eats not even what he needs. You eat a variety of cakes. He eats not even a piece of dried bread. You drink fine Thracian wine. On Him you have not bestowed so much as a cup of cold water. You lie on a soft and embroidered bed. He is perishing in the cold….
You live in luxury on things that properly belong to Him….
....At the moment, you have taken possession of the resources that belong to Christ and you consume them aimlessly. Don’t you realize that you are going to be held accountable?
St. John Chrysostom's Homily on the Gospel of Matthew XLVIII

....

Do you wish to honor the Body of the Savior? Do not despise Him when He is naked. Do not honor Him in church with silk vestments while outside He is naked and numb with cold. He who said, "This is my body." and made it so by His word, is the same that said, "You saw me hungry and you gave me no food. As you did it not to the least of these, you did it not to me." Honor Him then by sharing your property with the poor. For what God needs is not golden chalices but golden souls.
.…It is such a slight thing I beg….
....nothing very expensive…
....bread, a roof, words of comfort. If the rewards I promised hold no appeal for you, then show at least a natural compassion when you see me naked, and remember the nakedness I endured for you on the cross….
....I fasted for you then, and I suffer for you now. I was thirsty when I hung on the cross, and I thirst still in the poor, in both ways to draw you to myself to make you humane for your own salvation.
St. John Chrysostom's Homily on the Gospel of Matthew L

....

....When Christ is famishing, do you revel in such luxury, act so foolishly?....
....Another, made after the image of God, is perishing of cold. Yet, you’re furnishing yourself with such things as these? Oh the senseless pride!....
St. John Chrysostom's Homily on the Letter to the Colossians VII

....

....He is not rich who is surrounded by many possessions, but he who does not need many possessions. He is not poor who possesses nothing, but he who requires many things. We ought to consider this to be the distinction between poverty and wealth. When, therefore, you see any one longing for many things, esteem him of all men the poorest, even though he possess all manner of wealth. Again, when you see one who does not wish for many things, judge him to be of all men most affluent, even if he possess nothing. For by the condition of our mind, not by the quantity of our material wealth, should it be our custom to distinguish between poverty and affluence….
....It's as if we were sitting in a theater, and looking at the players on the stage. Do not, when you see many abounding in wealth, think that they are in reality wealthy, but dressed up in the semblance of wealth. And as one man, representing on the stage a king or a general, often may prove to be a household servant, or one of those who sell figs or grapes in the market. Therefore the rich man may often chance to be the poorest of all. For if you remove his mask and examine his conscience, and enter into his inner mind, you will find there great poverty as to virtue, and ascertain that he is the meanest of men. As also, in the theater, as evening closes in, and the spectators depart, those who come forth divested of their theatrical ornaments, who seemed to all to be kings and generals, now are seen to be whatever they are in reality. Even so with respect to this life, when death comes, and the theater is deserted, when all, having put off their masks of wealth or of poverty, depart hence, being judged only by their works, they appear, some really rich, some poor. Some appear in honor, some in dishonor. Therefore it often happens, that one of those who are here the most wealthy, is there most poor…
....This also is robber, not to impart our good things to others….
....It is said to be deprivation when we retain things taken from others. And in this way, therefore, we are taught that if we do not bestow alms, we shall be treated in the same way as those who have been extortioners. Our Lord’s things they are, from whenever we may obtain them. And if we distribute to the needy we shall obtain for ourselves great abundance. And for this it is that God has permitted you to possess much. This doesn't mean you should spend it in fornication, in drunkenness, in gluttony, in rich clothing, or any other mode of luxury, but that you should distribute it to the needy. And just as if a receiver of taxes, having in charge the king’s property, should not distribute it to those for whom it is ordered, but should spend it for his own enjoyment, he would pay the penalty and come to ruin. Therefore also the rich man is, as it were, a receiver of goods which are destined to be dispensed to the poor, to those of his fellow-servants who are in want. If he then should spend upon himself more than he really needs, he will pay hereafter a heavy penalty. For the things he has are not his own, but are the things of his fellow-servants.
....Not to share our own riches with the poor is a robbery of the poor, and a depriving them of their livelihood. That which we possess is not only our own, but also theirs.
St. John Chrysostom's Discourse on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus II

....

....Do you wish to see His altar?....
....This altar is composed of the very members of Christ…This altar you can see lying everywhere, in the alleys and in the markets and you can sacrifice upon it anytime.
....invoke the spirit not with words but with deeds.
St. John Chrysostom's Homily on the Second Letter to the Corinthians XX

....

....Tell me, then, what is the source of your wealth? From whom did you receive it, and from whom the one who transmitted it to you? From his father and his grandfather." Yet can you go back through the many generations and show the acquisition just? It cannot be. The root and origin of it must have been injustice. Why? Because God in the beginning did not make one man rich and another poor. Nor did He later show one treasures of gold and deny the other the right to search for it. He left the earth free to all alike. Why then, if it is common, do you have so many acres of land, while your neighbor has no portion of it?....
St. John Chrysostom's Homily on the First Letter to Timothy XII

....

....I am often reproached for continually attacking the rich. Yes, because the rich are continually attacking the poor. But those I attack are not the rich as such, only those who misuse their wealth. I point out constantly that those I accuse are not the rich but the rapacious. Wealth is one thing, covetousness another. Learn to distinguish....
St. John Chrysostom's Homily on the Fall of Consul Eutropius

Hi Reddit,
I need some advice regarding a prolonged estate settlement issue in New York City. Here’s a brief overview of my situation:

• An estate has been in probate since October 2018.
• The executor has repeatedly delayed the settlement, citing personal health issues and other reasons.
• Recently, I received a check for $6,800, but the expected inheritance is around $60,000. I have not received any clear explanation for this partial payment.
• My family and I are facing urgent financial needs due to a broken septic system, which costs about $20,000 to replace.

Given the significant delays and lack of communication, I am considering filing a petition to remove the executor. I’ve already drafted a petition and gathered documentation, but I’ve encountered a few obstacles:

1. High Legal Costs: I was quoted $5,000 for a retainer and $450 per hour for legal representation. This is quite expensive for me.
2. Income Considerations: I have a high income of $150,000, which might disqualify me from free or low-cost legal aid services.

My Questions:

1. Self-Representation: How difficult would it be to handle the removal of the executor myself? Has anyone done this successfully, and what should I be aware of?
2. Pro Bono or Sliding Scale Services: Are there any legal aid organizations or resources in NYC that might offer assistance despite my income level?
3. Next Steps: What should my immediate next steps be in ensuring that the estate is settled properly and in a timely manner?

I appreciate any advice or insights from those who have dealt with similar situations. Thank you!

Im a total noob so bare with me brothers and sisters!
so if i wanted to add these,(which i already have) what would be the correct way to go about it?
{} = {Every wish that i want granted and everything that i am manifesting is gamified(G)} {} = {I only get the exact results i desire} {} = {subliminals that i dont want to happen dont affect me, no matter the source.} {} = {subliminal results manifest instantly in the physical world with no harm}
Specifically, which letter should go between the brackets? or should i go about this in a different way, i.e. code it down differently?

I'm just saying everything on My mind please be nice and kind
(I'm 27m) I just feel an overwhelming sadness and feel I might lose a friend I might be overthinking, since i know they said they're still here and don't intend to break our friendship bond (which I'm happy) they just need some time away like a vacation to look at things from an unbiased view. But I hate being human and feeling everything and hate feeling like I'm emo and emotional 😢 I miss them I miss my friend . And the more I feel the more it gets to me man, I feel like blaming the important who I was close to me the first time they passed away and another important person who was the one who helped me through it, that ended up leaving to start a chapter without me in their life, I just feel like blaming them for making me the way I am and I feel bad and I shouldn't do it, and even though my family was there for me when i was young since I'm a dwarf and I had health problems I was in and out of hospital a lot and even though they were there for me they my mum wasn't actually attending to my childhood emotions needs properly and I realise now that some of it might be becuz the way her family was when she was younger I'm just assume, but I also can't help but blame them for the emotional abuse in the pass and my dad's physically abusing me and my siblings in the pass and now my family is saying he is changing and he doesn't even remember what he did. out of my siblings, I am the only one who loathe and despise him more than anything.
I'm actually trying to do this self discovery thing and trying to actually help and better myself so that when my friend returns we can both be in a better mindset, I'm literally actually trying to push myself to go on walks well I'm trying to learn how to get to the place first since I struggle to know where the places at I'm also trying to improve my art skills and creative writing.
but everytime I feel like I'm getting there it just feels like I'm being dragged back in that darkness and just falling and becuz Sometimes I feel I don't understand certain social cues or because of my learning difficulties it sometimes make things hard for me to understand what people mean or what they're trying to say and everything is soo hard mate.
And people always say I'm always in my bubble or always in my head it's becuz of this they don't mean it in the bad way Everything was much easier when I was hiding everything from me being cheerful and goofy and making a fool out of myself I was always someone who had pure, innocent, kind intentions and that is me and now I just want to scream and destroy everything and lash out from all this pain and sadness and anxious I'm feeling
And I just want to be happy with the ones I care about and love and make them feel care about, supported and loved and make them feel like I have their back
I remember feeling faint and weak from the thought of being left and I think I had a mild anxiety attack i managed to calm myself
people say you're just being human it's ok. I need to distracted my mind think calmly even when I'm home Even now I want to cry but when I do I just cry silently in my room so I don't wake my family
I'm sorry for saying this I dunno why I feel bad now but trust when I say I was never like this before
Might delete later when my mind is calm

For context, this story happened nearly 3 years ago, however a recent late-night conversation with a friend made it clear to me that the repercussions of this incident are still being felt to this day.
I (25M) met my now-ex girlfriend (25F), whom I will be assigning the fake name "Anne," when we were both 17 at our small town high school in semi-rural Georgia. Our romantic relationship began following our senior prom which we attended together. Despite our approaching high school graduations, the two of us decided that we could make our relationship work beyond high school and into college since we would both be attending different universities in the same city. We each grew up in typical southern protestant traditions and casually held onto some sort of religious beliefs. I, myself, have always identified religiously as something of a deist, meaning I believed (and still do to this day) that some sort of higher entity, force, or meaning was responsible for existence. Anne, at that time, would have self-identified as a Christian and attended church semi-regularly, however it was never a significant part of her life or attitude toward the world.
Shortly after we both began our new lives as college students in an unfamiliar city, Anne expressed that she would like to search for a new church to attend regularly as it helped create a sense of community and belonging for her which she had been missing since moving away from home. I strongly encouraged this, since I wanted her to be able to make friends and discover herself philosophically. The church that caught her attention was a non-denominational "modern" church that seemed to emphasize community at least on a surface level basis. However, out of curiosity, I took a look at the church's website and did notice a few mentions of "Pentecostal experience", which worried me since my only knowledge of Pentecostals was rumors of snake handling, especially in the more rural areas of the South. However, I chose to not be too judgmental upfront and continued to encourage her to find herself and meet new people.
Over the next few months, Anne started to spend more and more time devoted to bible studies and attending gatherings for women at the church. She specifically asked me not to accompany her on Sunday services since, as she put it, the elder members of the church would not act too kindly about unmarried woman "dragging around" some unfamiliar man who was not her husband. It became clear pretty quickly that she was becoming more than just a casual Christian and I supported this, however we did not talk much about the specifics of what she was being taught at this church.
This all came to a head when one night, Anne asked me if she could pray over me in something she called a "spiritual language." Having only ever heard vaguely of speaking in tongues, I obliged. I sat next to her on my couch and watched as she raised one hand and began quietly chanting in complete gibberish. My heart immediately sank in discomfort and fear but I was too stunned to do anything. so I just sat and watched for several minutes until she finally went quiet. All I could do or say was tell her that I appreciated her thoughtfulness and went about my day.
Pretty soon, the behaviors and acts became more and more extreme. Her "tongues" became louder and more intense and began to include violent shakes and lots (and I mean LOTS) of crying. She spoke of seeing "signs" and hearing "the voice of God" in a very literal sense. Her grades in college even began to suffer as more and more of her time was devoted to these newfound beliefs. Naturally, I became extremely worried that she was slowly slipping into some sort of paranoid delusional psychosis. At the very least, these teachings made her into a much angrier and more paranoid person. It was clear that her new beliefs were more than just a spiritual awakening but also a nose-dive into a mental health crisis.
Our relationship, at this point, was very clearly waning but my feelings toward the woman I once knew were still strong. I decided that it was time for an intervention of sorts. This resulted in me spending a whole weekend studying Pentecostal beliefs and reading Reddit stories from ex-Pentecostals about what it took to break them out of their conditioning. It was on a Monday night when I invited her over to my apartment to confront her about how the things her church were teaching her were actively harming her and even presented her with evidence of how these churches prey on mentally unwell people and how "speaking in tongues" was nothing more than an experience in her own brain chemicals. While I had hoped that hearing her new beliefs be directly confronted would help break the spell they had on her, it seemed to have no effect. Surprisingly, she did not fight back or show much anger toward my confrontation, instead resorting to the "please respect my beliefs" argument that made it so hard to push back against, since, at this time, I was still concerned about preserving our relationship.
Unfortunately, things only got worse from here. I spent some time trying to ignore the issue for the sake of the relationship, especially because I did not sense that I had many other romantic options given my shy nature and struggles to make new friends at college. However, my new "ignorance is bliss" approach to our relationship did not last long. At this point, we had been together for about 3 years and the conversation of marriage and kids started to become serious. I have always wanted kids since I come from a large family with many siblings, which Anne seemingly was excited about as well. However, after a pleasant conversation in which we fantasized about what we would name our children, she said something that sparked an anger in me that I did not often feel. She told me that if any of our future children came out to us as gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or anything like that, that we would have to disown that child at all costs and that she could not love her child knowing that they were a "sodomite" (her words). I have always considered myself an ally of LGBTQ+ folks and wouldn't think twice about loving my children any less if they came out to me and have always felt this way. I did not say much in the moment out of pure shock and instead steered the conversation elsewhere while I quietly boiled over in anger over this comment.
Here is where the title of this post comes into play and where my role in this interaction enters a grey area. I spent several days unable to let this anger subside while imagining my own perspective children being thrown to the streets for bravely coming out to their own parents. I decided that another intervention was necessary, except this time I didn't want to be ignored. I came up with a plan that I referred to as a "scorched earth" intervention. Over the course of an evening, I began texting, calling, or messaging almost every person that Anne was close to. This included family, friends, past friends, classmates, and even some plain old acquaintances. I needed her paranoid and hateful beliefs to be confronted by more than just myself and hoped that if everyone important to her also expressed concern; that she would separate herself from this church and seek proper mental health counseling.
The responses I received from Anne's friends and family ranged significantly. Some people, including her mother whom I was close with, asked that I not try to "insert myself between Anne and God". Some friends agreed with me wholeheartedly and would reach out to Anne over text or in person to try and offer help. Some people met me with total apathy. Unsurprisingly, once Anne found out what I did, she broke things off over a brief but highly emotional phone call. She told me that I had embarrassed her and that supposedly God was telling her I wasn't the man she was supposed to marry. It did not hurt too bad since I was anticipating the end of this relationship for a while. The effects of my approach seemingly had lasting impacts on many of her relationships, however. At least one longtime friendship had ended because the friend was appalled by Anne's new paranoid beliefs. It was also unsuccessful, as Anne would never seek mental health counseling. In fact, it probably pushed her further into her church crowd - only further bolstering her new delusions.
Since much time has passed, I have started to feel uncertain whether or not I did the right thing in trying to have all of Anne's friends and family confront her about her extreme beliefs. At the time, I felt that I was justified and doing the right thing by trying to encourage a clearly delusion person to seek mental health counseling by any means necessary. Now, I am able to realize that I acted out of anger and permanently damaged how some of her oldest friends view her. I also realize that I acted immaturely and probably should not have tried to bring in every person close to Anne to fight a battle on my behalf.
Nowadays, Anne is still with that church and regularly posts on Facebook all sorts of whacky spiritual conspiracies. She is still very clearly paranoid and delusional all while putting on a facade of normalcy. I just pity her for living in a constant state of paranoia at this point. She even works full time with the church as a "worship leader," although I am not sure what exactly that means. She actually got married about a year after the relationship ended to a man she met at her church. They met, got engaged, and married all within 12 months. Thankfully, no children have been brought into this world yet from their relationship, which is surprising to me considering how urgent it seemed to her during our relationship. I do not hear much from any friends or family of hers anymore, other than one mutual friend who told me that Anne frequently refers to me as "that demon." As for myself, I finished school and have not married but was able to finally make friends and go on dates and my future is looking bright.
So, Reddit, am I the asshole for my "scorched earth" methods towards my fanatical ex-girlfriend?

(“dictated” in an undisclosed location with her own basket of tomatoes) “David wants to be Grand Puja of the Inland Empire. The Evil Producer’s sinister order: “This is the girl”… that was what WannaPuja said holding Naomi Watts’, a suicidal actress on her last legs, photo to cast her. She stumbles about through the plot rather dim-witted, only coming fully alive while… acting during an audition. So the Puja’s Handlers drive the hotties around in limousines… make directors who look suspiciously like Tarantino bankrupt…. Barge into homes for some quick kidnapping…and of course act out their fantasies on the casting couch. It’s not too long before Naomi indeed has a mouth full of supermodel tit. The Hollywood/Mysterious Cult No One Can Say It’s Name rolls on in its skittish way, both humorous and boring. The girls do wake up in the middle of the night to go to a club to see a girl get murdered. She seemed nice enough. The illusion is that they really killed her and hahaha made everyone watch like it was a show. There are three million tales in the naked city and not getting a role you want and getting dumped for it is all of them. Amid the grieving, the other main source of power, The Shit-Covered Transvestite Behind Denny’s, releases Their Handlers and kill “the girl,” making it look like a suicide. The Lady With Blue Hair suggests we forget all this ever happened.”

Jumādā I, 22 AH / 25th April, 643 CE.
Features
It has Arabic and Greek text. The place of discovery of this document is probably Egypt.
Contents
The translation of the document is given below. The Arabic part is in italics:
Recto
God! In the name of God! I, Emir ʿAbdallāh, to you, Christophoros and Theodorakios, Intendants of Herakleopolis! For the maintenance of the Sarasins who are with me, I took from you at Heracleopolis 65 sheep, I repeat: sixty-five and no more, and as an acknowledgement of this fact, we have made the present confirmation. In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful! This is what have taken ʿAbdallāh, Written by me, Jean, notary and deacon. On the 30th of the month of Pharmouthi of the 1st indiction. Son of Jabir, and his companions-in-arms, as of slaughter sheep at Heracleopolis. We have taken from a representative of Theodorakios, second son of Apa Kyros, and from a substitute of Christophoros, eldest son of Apa Kyros, fifty sheep as of slaughter sheep and fifteen other sheep. He gave them, for slaughter, for the crew of his vessels, as well as his cavalry and his breastplated infantry in the month of Jumādā the first in the year twenty-two. Written by Ibn Ḥadīd. Verso
Document concerning the delivery of sheep to the Magarites and other people who arrived, as a down-payment of the taxes of the 1st indiction.
Comments
‘Emir ʿAbdallāh’ here is none other than ʿAbdullāh b. Jābir, who was commander of the expeditionary corps to Upper Egypt in 641-643 CE. In this papyrus, he gives a receipt for 65 sheep for provision of his troops consisting of crew, cavalry and heavily armed soldiers, in Jumādā I, 22 AH (25th April 643 CE). The Muslim forces were well-equipped; heavily armed soldiers and cavalry were accompanied by ships to facilitate strategic movement of troops. This document is of interest as it concerns an important phase of hard struggle against the Byzantine forces resisting fiercely the Arab attack. ʿAbdullāh b. Jābir is also mentioned in two other papyri, viz., PERF 555 and PERF 557.
The interesting part of this document is the use of Magarites that is written in Greek and is identified as mujahirūn. This manuscript shows extensive dotting of Arabic script. Diacritical dots on the letters ج، خ، ذ، ز، ش and ن are clearly visible.
One will notice the Christian iconography in the text in the form of the sign of the cross. This can also be found on several other early ‘official’ papyri texts issued by early Muslim military commanders, such as PERF 556 and Pap. BM 1079. Written in Greek, this text would have been penned by a Christian scribe, so it is reasonable to assume he was simply following usual scribal practice by punctuating the text with the sign of the cross, bearing in mind the recipient of the letter would also have been Christian. It was also a way for the scribe to reassert his faith given the religious tenets of the conquering army. One will note the Arabic part of the text which was written most likely by a Muslim is not punctuated by the sign of the cross.
This papyrus is a part of the Archduke Rainer Collection (usually abbreviated as PERF). It is one of the earliest Arabic papyri; the other one being P. Berol. 15002. Other papyri from 22 AH / 643 CE are PERF 555, PERF 556, PERF 557 and P. Berol. 15002.
Location
The Austrian National Museum, Vienna.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to the Austrian National Museum, Vienna, for originally providing us the photo of the papyrus.
Bookmark and Share
References
[1] A. Grohmann, "Aperçu De Papyrologie Arabe", Études De Papyrologie, 1932, Volume 1, pp. 40-43.
[2] A. Grohmann, From The World Of Arabic Papyri, 1952, Al-Maaref Press: Cairo (Egypt), pp. 113-115.
[3] A. Grohmann, I Arabische Chronologie. II Arabische Papyruskunde, 1966, Handbuch Der Orientalistik, E. J. Brill: Leiden/Köln, Plate II:1.
The images above are reproduced from the stated sources under the provisions of the copyright law. This allows for the reproduction of portions of copyrighted material for non-commercial, educational purposes.
With the exception for those images which have passed into the public domain, the use of these images for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without the consent of the copyright holder.

About 4 years ago I practically left my father in a heated argument after a number of things and factors which drove me to the point of leaving suddenly. I was in a really dark place when I left and still in a dark place but a lot has changed. I finally grew up (to an extent) where It took me distance from him to realise how controlled I was. Basically the whole family had been torn apart over my grandparents will. He has been living with my elderly grandmother who is diagnosed with dementia and taking care of her since. My father has been trying to change the will so that the house gets put into his name and then eventually me. It was originally so that the house gets sold and divided by this side of the family and my aunties side. My dad has nothing to do with my auntie anymore due to all this and he also shunned my sister out of his life because she also didn’t agree with what he was trying to do.
When I moved over the course of a year I got constant emails being emotionally manipulative and gaslighting me to the point when i eventually said I wanted nothing more to do with what happened when I left and I want to keep it in the past. Time has passed since then and our relationship seemed to be getting better but now recently he has been talking about needing to talk about everything that happened properly and what he wants to do about the future of my grandparents estate. Already I have seen how this chat will go because he has already been gaslighting me when he tried to go into why I left.
As it stands I still have no intention on wanting to go into what happened because i’ve already seen how he worms his way back in my head and he’s already breaking that barrier by going back there. What most importantly I feel and realise is where I stand with him and his intentions on trying to change the will. He has been drilling into me this whole time that it’s because it was their wishes on my grandfathers deathbed. But I have a feeling there is ulterior motives. The way this has all been handled has been emotionally driven and thought with no logic and he was basically cohering me into trying to change it which I feel like he is still doing. At the moment I feel like he’s been buttering me up all this time to get to the stage of changing the will. I’m his only hope in getting things changed and before I left he was controlling me that much that It probably would have got to that stage.
Now I have had a long time to reflect and I still feel the same in which I feel like its completely wrong. I feel like if my grandfather wanted to keep the house in the family then that would be in the will and that reason it was not kept in the will is because they couldn’t be trusted to sort things properly, which is what we have now. I’m pretty sure they got taken off the will in the past and originally it was all going to go to me after a family drama 18 years ago. If he knew how I truly felt I know exactly how it would go and that would be him accusing me of being on my aunties side and wanting to sell the land for housing development.
I don’t want to be apart of something that has completely destroyed this family and it’s basically I need to see where I stand with my father. If that he truly cares or this whole time he has been using me for his own gain. I can hear it in his voice now that things don’t really sound sincere they are more like words to incise me back into his control. I’m having to be really careful in how I play my words because it’s like having to chat with someone with a loaded gun. He thinks only in terms of how he thinks and feels. I could go into so much more detail. But I think I just need some advice in how I go about approaching things when I eventually have this talk with him. Anyone else experienced something similar?

Below is currently my configs to have my background change to images within a file. Github repo (https://github.com/KevinSilvestewezterm-config/tree/master). I would like to make it where when I use NeoVim within WezTerm, only the background settings remain the same (Opacity, Image, etc). What are some ways to possibly achieve this? Thank you!
```lua local wezterm = require('wezterm') local gpu_adapters = require('utils.gpu_adapter') local colors = require('colors.custom')
return { animation_fps = 60, max_fps = 60, front_end = 'WebGpu', webgpu_power_preference = 'HighPerformance', webgpu_preferred_adapter = gpu_adapters:pick_best(),
-- color scheme colors = colors,
-- background background = { { source = { File = wezterm.GLOBAL.background }, horizontal_align = 'Center', }, { source = { Color = colors.background }, height = '100%', width = '100%', opacity = 0.96, }, },
-- scrollbar enable_scroll_bar = true,
-- tab bar enable_tab_bar = true, hide_tab_bar_if_only_one_tab = false, use_fancy_tab_bar = false, tab_max_width = 25, show_tab_index_in_tab_bar = false, switch_to_last_active_tab_when_closing_tab = true,
-- window window_padding = { left = 5, right = 10, top = 12, bottom = 7, }, window_close_confirmation = 'NeverPrompt', window_frame = { active_titlebar_bg = '#090909', -- font = fonts.font, -- font_size = fonts.font_size, }, inactive_pane_hsb = { saturation = 0.9, brightness = 0.65, }, }
```

Fellow editors,
I am relatively inexperienced in video editing. I have previous experience of Camtasia and iMovie - nowadays only using iMovie.
In my speech with face videos, I often need to show shape animations along the way. When I use ppt exported video, it serves the purpose but the effect is not in sync with my voice. Plus, the whole process takes a lot of time.
Is there a tool that gives me both: video track editing + basic animations (shape shifting, text movement found in average quality videos). No VFX. Some characters wouldn't hurt, though. AI isn't a problem either.
I have already tried tools like DaVinci Resolve and Kine master. While they look all-containing and powerful, it took me a lot of time to learn even the basic things, and I could not find my desired capabilities (problem with me being impatient for the tool, but that's a thing I have no way to get around currently).
I am not a huge fan of web based tools. Nor I have the time and audacity to learn Adobe suit of tools. I guess my needs are not that advanced either.
I use a macbook air + M2 pro.
Free (with attribution) is better, but for a quality tool, $100 a year wouldn't hurt.
Thanks in advance!
N.B. As a programmer, I got fascinated by what Manim could do. Would love to know of any plug and play (preset + drag drop kind of) tools that relied upon it, for consistency + speed.

Hi everyone! I told myself I'd post on here to pay it forward as someone who has spent a lot of time obsessively lurking on this sub.
I took the GRE last Saturday and got a 163V 168Q. Thought I'd share some of my thoughts/ perspective in case it's useful!
Things I'm glad I did: 1. Giving quant the respect it deserves!!! I took the GRE in college, and as a CS major who had taken really difficult math classes, I had this perception that it would almost be embarrassing if I had to study hard for the quant section. With this approach, I was never able to break 162. This time around, I made sure to give it the respect it deserves and was able to get a higher score.

1. Spending time on the fundamentals This one is controversial, and I'm not sure what the "best practice" is, but for the first three months of studying, I focused most of my efforts on completing TTPs quant course. It was long and it took a while to get through, esp because I was taking diligent notes and completing all the problems / chapter tests, but I found it to be really useful in setting me up for success when I began doing real practice problems.
   
2. Doing timed problems After getting the fundamentals down, I focused on doing a ton of timed problems. I used the 5lb book and the Big Book for this. I would have a stopwatch going on my phone and hit the lap button every time I finished a problem. Then, I would literally log in an excel which ones I got right and wrong, how long they took, and (1) why exactly I got questions wrong and (2) why a question took me a long time if I spent more than 3 min on it. I found timed practice with logging helpful because it helped unearth some of my flaws in test taking. For example, it made me realize how many arithmetic errors I made and how many questions I missed from just not reading the question carefully. So then I was able to make some mental notes on what I wanted my "question protocol" to be (I.e read each question twice, slight pause to make sure arithmetic is correct, etc.)
   
3. Practice hard problems If you want to break a 165, the reality is that a majority of the questions you get will be medium and hard. Which means you have to get good at answering hard questions correctly and quickly. The only way to do this is by more practice. I used the following sources for a repository of hard questions to drill: (1) Advanced quant section of 5lb book and (2) GregMat quant questions.
   

I can't stress this enough because the reality is the actual test was harder than any ETS practice tests so it's important to ensure you over prepare for advanced questions.
Mistakes I made: 1. Not preparing enough for verbal. When I first took the GRE 5 years ago, I got a near perfect verbal score. Additionally, I had gotten a good verbal score when I took a diagnostic GRE so I didn't think it was pertinent. That was a bad decision because the verbal section was REALLY hard and I know I left points on the table by not studying for it

1. Freaking out over everything This whole process was really emotionally draining. I never got great practice test scores and it made me question my value, my intelligence, and my worth throughout. I just want to stress (understood it's way easier than done) to try your best to just enjoy the process and not ruin your mental health over this test!

Other little tips: 1. The first free PP1 is INCREDIBLY deceptive. I am convinced ETS made it way easier than the other practice tests / the actual GRE bc they know people are going to use it as a diagnostic, score higher than they think, and therefore decide to take the GRE over whichever competing exam. I scored a 165 on verbal, which made me think I didn't need to study much verbal BUT THIS IS A TRAP!!! So just keep this in mind before making any big decisions about your study plan.

1. Be judicious with ETS materials. Try your very best not to exhaust them early in your prep journey since there isn't a lot out there
   
2. It is true, the actual GRE is harder than the practice tests. I don't mean to inspire anxiety in anyone, but it is true unfortunately. So it is best to over prepare.
   
3. The GRE big book is helpful but keep in mind the quant is way easier than the actual GRE. I think the book was made at a time when students had less time per problem and there was no calculator involved. So just keep in mind that most quant problems are going to be on the easy side
   

Please let me know if you have any questions, and I'd be happy to answer!

On theories explaining facts—

The recent post (How was it determined that Evolution is a Scientific Theory? : evolution) got me thinking:
Darwin & Wallace's original paper (the one hastily written a year before Origin) should still be cited.
So, I went and looked, and yes, so here's what I found, which I thought to share because I've found it 1) cool, historically; and 2) illustrative of how a scientific theory brings facts together—TL;DR: Darwin and Wallace explained how what farmers have known for millennia could apply generally to life.
(Emphasis below mine)
The random paper I found from this century:

Some of the first ideas on how biodiversity could affect the way ecosystems function are attributable to Darwin and Wallace28,83, who stated that a diverse mixture of plants should be more productive than a monoculture. They also suggested the underlying biological mechanism: because coexisting species differ ecologically, loss of a species could result in vacant niche-space and potential impacts on ecosystem processes. Defining ecological niches is not straightforward, but Darwin and Wallace's hypothesis, if correct, provides a general biological principle which predicts that intact, diverse communities are generally more stable and function better than versions that have lost species. Recent experimental evidence (reviewed by Chapin et al., pages 234–242, and McCann, pages 228–233), although pointing out important exceptions, generally supports this idea.

• Purvis, Andy, and Andy Hector. "Getting the measure of biodiversity." Nature 405.6783 (2000): 212-219. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012221

And the relevant section from the 1858 paper:

6. Another principle, which may be called the principle of divergence, plays, I believe, an important part in the origin of species. The same spot will support more life if occupied by very diverse forms. We see this in the many generic forms in a square yard of turf, and in the plants or insects on any little uniform islet, belonging almost invariably to as many genera and families as species. We can understand the meaning of this fact amongst the higher animals, whose habits we understand. We know that it has been experimentally shown that a plot of land will yield a greater weight if sown with several species and genera of grasses, than if sown with only two or three species. Now, every organic being, by propagating so rapidly, may be said to be striving its utmost to increase in numbers. So it will be with the offspring of any species after it has become diversified into varieties, or subspecies, or true species. And it follows, I think, from the foregoing facts, that the varying offspring of each species will try (only few will succeed) to seize on as many and as diverse places in the economy of nature as possible. Each new variety or species, when formed, will generally take the place of, and thus exterminate its less well-fitted parent. This I believe to be the origin of the classification and affinities of organic beings at all times; for organic beings always seem to branch and sub-branch like the limbs of a tree from a common trunk, the flourishing and diverging twigs destroying the less vigorous—the dead and lost branches rudely representing extinct genera and families.

• Darwin, Charles, and Alfred Wallace. "On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection." Journal of the proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 3.9 (1858): 45-62. wikisource.org

Side note: Yes, Darwin got some stuff wrong in Origin (and those were presented speculatively), and we now know a lot more—theories expand and update.

Long story short, after many attempts to save it, my PC is kaput. I was able to narrow it down to the CPU, possibly the motherboard, though that seems less likely.
Problem is, it may be my fault. The motherboard I originally picked died after about a year, and I was in a hurry to replace it with what I thought was a compatible one for the GPU. But I didn't do my proper research, and it's likely I bottlenecked the CPU by picking what was actually a downgrade. (Which explains a lot of the crashes.)
So, time for a new one. But honestly a lot of this stuff still goes straight over my head, and I don't trust to go off only myself for research this time. I'm good at Google-fu, not so much computer hardware.
Here's the specs: MOBO: GIGABYTE B450M DS3H WIFI (Rev. 1.2) GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 PSU: INSIGNIA NS-PCW5250 (taken from an older machine) Monitor(s): 1920x1080 HP Pavilion 27xw RAM: TEAMGROUP 32GB (2x16) DDR4 3600 (Backups: NEO FORZA DDR4 32GB (2x16) 3200)
CURRENT CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 3600
If there's any other specs you need, lemme know. It's easy to grab.
Uses: Mainly for 3D and 2D art/animation, but I also played a lot of games. The most GPU/CPU-demanding one was Baldur's Gate 3, which ran pretty okay, but definitely had loading and framerate issues and crashes. Graphics were beautiful otherwise.
If it'd be better to replace the mobo as well, I don't mind that. I know a lot of the time CPUs and motherboards are sold together.
Budget: Not great, but $400 is the best I can do, maybe just slightly above that. I'd rather keep it around $300 if it's manageable.
What I Definitely Need: Whatever can run BG3. I figure anything with a CPU that can handle that and this graphics card is going to handle 2D and 3D design just as well. Obviously going to need to be DDR4 compatible.
What I Would Like (but not mandatory): Multiple HDMI ports would be nice but I got adapters if I need them.
What I Don't Need: LEDs (the case I picked is solid black so you'd never see them). Though I'll probably switch this case out anyway if I'm changing the motherboard. Don't need a built-in WIFI adapter, since I use ethernet. I'm not planning on overclocking. I don't need something cutting-edge and I've no way to implement a water cooling system, the case just isn't meant for it. I'm not worried about storage either, since all my stuff is on an SSD.
(If I sound clueless or got something wrong, apologies. It's been trial and error, and definitely still learning, but I'm starting to get it.)

There seem to be a large number of people who believe that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to grant and guarantee rights to the American people. Furthermore, I have heard many people claim that the Bill of Rights is entirely a list of specifically individual rights of American citizens. It puzzles me why these beliefs continue to persist, because the historical record indicates that there is no reason to believe these descriptions of the Bill of Rights. There is a more than adequate amount of historical evidence to corroborate my conclusion. The first and most direct evidence is the very preamble to the Bill of Rights itself. The original preamble of the Bill of Rights begins with a paragraph explaining the document’s purpose; it goes as follows:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

I think the three most important phrases in this paragraph are “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”, “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, and “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government”. These three phrases seem to best sum up what the Bill of Rights was originally meant to accomplish: it is a list of declaratory and restrictive clauses whose purpose is to prevent the misconstruction or abuse of the Constitution’s powers, and to increase public confidence in the federal government. And if one were to look at the Bill of Rights, its text would seem to be in harmony with this statement of purpose. The Bill of Rights consists mostly of negative clauses which put restrictions on the federal government; it states what shall not happen or what shall not be done by Congress, such as prohibiting freedom of religion, abridging freedom of speech, infringing the right to keep and bear arms, violating the right to be secure in property, etc. And the ninth and tenth amendments do not mention any particular rights whatsoever, and clearly just serve the purpose of preventing the Constitution from being misconstrued or abused to diminish the rights of the states and the people, and to prevent granting the federal government more power than the Constitution meant for it to have. The phrase “extending the ground of public confidence in the Government” further indicates that the Bill of Rights was not really meant to add rights not already stipulated in the Constitution, but was only meant to reinforce trust in the federal government at the time of the Founding. The Bill of Rights was not meant to add any substantive articles to the Constitution, but rather it consisted of articles whose purpose was to reinforce the articles that had already been established, and prevent them from being misinterpreted in the future by any unscrupulous members of the federal government. Also notice that there is nothing written here in the preamble about granting rights to the American people, let alone granting specifically individual rights to the American people: you would think if the framers of the Bill of Rights had meant for this to be the document’s effect, they would have stated so clearly in the preamble.
Another piece of evidence for my conclusion comes in an address given by James Madison -- the author of the Bill of Rights -- in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. This address involved an early proposal of amendments to the Constitution. Before listing his various propositions for amending the Constitution, Madison said this:

There have been objections of various kinds made against the Constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.

The part I've put in italics indicates that the major purpose of the amendments to the Constitution was to reassure citizens that effective protections were put in place to prevent the “magistrate who exercises the sovereign power” from encroaching upon their rights. Notice there is nothing written here about granting rights to the people, only protecting the people's pre-existing rights from the federal government.
Following the above statement, Madison begins to list a variety of proposed additions to the Constitution, and he proposes the additions be inserted into the body of the Constitution itself, at various sections. Ultimately, he begins to propose a certain list of amendments to be inserted within article 1, section 9; and this particular list happens to correspond to most of the articles which comprise the Bill of Rights as it exists today:

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

It is notable to consider that Madison initially proposed the Bill of Rights to be integrated into the Constitution itself, rather than to be a separate document. But what is even more notable is the specific location it was proposed to be inserted in. Article 1, section 9 is specifically the location of the Constitution dedicated to enumerating the prohibitions upon the power of Congress. What this means is that the original plan for the amendments currently appearing in the Bill of Rights was for them to merely be a list of stipulations regarding what Congress was not allowed to do. Thus, it would make no sense for those same clauses today to be construed as being themselves grants of rights to individual American citizens, anymore than other articles within this same section -- such as Congress being prohibited from abolishing the slave trade before 1808, or laying taxes on state exports -- could themselves be considered grants of individual rights to American citizens.
Another piece of evidence can be found in the 1833 Supreme Court case Barron v Baltimore. This case essentially makes explicit that which was originally understood about the Bill of Rights -- that it was meant only as a list of prohibitions upon Congress. The following excerpt makes this clear:

Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

And then the aforementioned case was subsequently referenced by the 1875 Supreme Court case US v Cruikshank, which further reinforced the same conclusion while addressing the first and second amendments of the Bill of Rights:

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. [. . .] It is now too late to question the correctness of this construction. As was said by the late Chief Justice, in Twitchell v. The Commonwealth (#325), 7 Wall. 325, "the scope and application of these amendments are no longer subjects of discussion here." They left the authority of the States just where they found it, and added nothing to the already existing powers of the United States.
The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference. For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln (#139), 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.

So as you can see, it was well-established from the time of the country’s founding that the Bill of Rights was never meant to itself be a grant or guarantee of rights to the American people. The official function of the Bill of Rights was always prohibitive rather than affirmative: the purpose was to restrain the federal government, rather than to endow something to American citizens. So what I don’t understand is: how has the Bill of Rights become so misunderstood and misapplied? Why is it that, from the layman even to the level of the modern-day Supreme Court, it is believed that the Bill of Rights is meant to grant or guarantee rights to individual American citizens, when this conclusion is unequivocally unsupported by the historical record? And not only is this conclusion not supported by the historical evidence, but I would argue that it contradicts the very purpose of the Bill of Rights; the whole point of the document was to limit the power of Congress, but interpreting the document to be a federal guarantee of rights to the people is, in effect, a transference of power to the federal government never stipulated in the Constitution, and is in violation of the tenth amendment.
The Bill of Rights, according to its original design, is essentially superfluous; effectively declaring nothing in itself, and only serving to clarify the intent of the Constitution, prevent it from being adversely misinterpreted, and to make explicit what was implicitly acknowledged regarding the boundaries of congressional power. There had been much debate among the Founders regarding whether the Bill of Rights should even exist at all. So how is it that a document whose original purpose was to be nothing more than a protection of civil rights has now become interpreted effectively as the source of the people's civil rights?

As it says DM for this courses:
​
- Harmon Brothers – How To Make Your Ads Funny
- Jim Edwards – Copywriting Secrets
- Harmon Brothers – 14-Day Script Challenge
- Nate Schmidt – Brain Dead Simple Copy
- Jay Abraham – 94 Billion Dollarman
- Dan Henry – Modern Day Copy
- Tej Dosa – 6 Figure Promotions
- How to Use Keepa for Amazon FBA Wholesale
- Jason Capital – The Capital Copywriting Certification Program 2019
- Ben Settle – Email Players List Swell
- Joshua Lisec – The Best Way To Say It
- UX Writing: Creating A UX Writing Style Guide In 5 Easy Steps
- Introduction to UX Writing: How to Write Great Microcopy
- UX Writing Finding Your Voice & Tone in 4 Easy Steps
- Mindful UX Writing: Writing for a Diverse Audience
- The UX Portfolio Formula - A UX portfolio course created by Sarah Doody
- Copyhackers – Copy School 2020
- Chris Orzechowski – Email Copy Academy
- Chris Orzechowski – Quick And Dirty Sales Letter
- Adam Enfroy – Blog Growth Engine
- Adam Enfroy – Backlink Blueprint & Affiliate Advantage Bundle
- Daniel Throssell – Email Copywriting Compendium
- Daniel Throssell – Market Detective
- Van Vizovisek – Become a Jedi Copy Master
- Alex Cattoni – Write & Ignite Challenge
- Jeremy Moser – Landing Page Copywriting Mastery
- Dickie Bush – Ship 30 for 30
- Ian Stanley – 90 Days to Freedom Jumpstart
- Cardinal Mason and Chase Dimond – Copy MBA + The Freelancing Masterclass
- Alex Cattoni – Copy Posse Launch Files
- Dan Koe – The 2 Hour Writer
- Tyson 4D – Copy Client Accelerator 2.0
​
If you are interested in any of those, write me, it doesn't matter if you don't have anything to trade, just write me.
I'M ONLY TALKING TO PEOPLE THROUGH TELEGRAM, SEND ME A MESSAGE THERE!
THIS IS MY USERNAME THERE: t. me/electronicdimension7 (Remove the space between "t." and "me" for the link to work properly or search directly for my telegram name electronicdimension7)
Over there, I'll share more than +1150 comments with positive reviews from telegram users who have gotten assets from me in the past. And when I mean users I mean people you can ACTUALLY verify and message directly and ask... I am the only one on all of reddit and/or telegram that has all reviews 100% only from telegram, no fake review photos or reviews from reddit using bots or multiaccounts, like many scammers do. I'll also send you proof that I have what you're looking for in a way that NO ONE else on reddit will be able to send you.

I seriously can not do this anymore my entire life is just pathetic all i do to cope is drink and im so tired of trying so hard to just make it through a day i dont think anyone should live like this i am so tired and im not really afraid of death (to some extent) but i just dont have a proper method but whatever it is i wanna get it done tonight im not going to wait anymore i have multiple mental illnesses and im extremely fucked up in the head and i wouldnt wish this life on my worst enemy it's just getting sad and i feel like i have to finally get it done i have been stalling because i cant find a way to get it done thats easy and doesnt require medications or equipment because i dont have access to anything so i dont know what it's gonna be but im ready to finally die i dont think its scary i think its gonna be to some extent comforting and beautiful even i just dont know how to get there

Hey so I am sick. Have a rare incurable autoimmune disease. Heart is not right. Kidney is not right. Im at stage 4 of Takayasu arteritis which has also affected my carotid and subclavian arteries. So i recently started to get interested in Islam again and i didnt really pray much before like 5months ago. I used to pray laying down facing qabah but recently got enough energy to pray while sitting down but my back has still be resting on something. So what really stops me from praying on time is I will have issue doing ghusul x 5. The act of even sitting down (especially on floor) and then getting up (if its one prayer then say 5min later) would put me out breath, put my heart rate at 130bpm and aggravate my disease. I thought i found enough evidence to do this but then when i told this on my public social media everyone criticised me which led me to get disheartened because i really want to do the right thing. Im even learning quran with proper translation and doing tafsir and just really you know into it. But when i got the criticism I have stopped because i was scared of doing Biddah. So im now doing neither. So if anyone can help me with this query with proper sources, it would be highly appreciated. Thankyou.

I've had BB since about 6/7 years ago. My symptoms are a lot of saliva, very bad taste on my mouth and BB. This is specially triggered when I dont eat anything for 1/2 hours and on. The BB is only noticeable from a short distance, and I can smell it cause my saliva smells.
Over this time I've visited probably a dozen of doctors. Gastroenterologist, stomatologist, dentists, otolaryngologist and so on.
Gastroenterologist: First I was diagnosed with hiatus hernia from an endoscopy, later on, discarded by another one done by a better doctor. During this second time I had some bile in the stomach and mild gastroenteritis. I've taken all kind of omeprazoles with no effect, except one (not sure which one it was) that kind of change the taste I felt for some time.
Stomatologist: was given an oral antibiotics with not much explanation, which I took for some time and then stopped. I was unsure how to take it, or for how long since the doctor was not very explainatory. Again, nothing changed.
Dentist: My oral hygiene was not so good when I was younger, but of course over the last year it has become better, flossing every day, visiting a very good dentist very often. Used to have a very bad one. Had three root canals done and one crown. One other symptom is that I need a clean done very often, since bacteria accumulate regardless of the hygiene. Also over time I had to learn how to take care properly. This involves using a very soft brush, floss, waterpick, etc.
Otolaryngologist: Checked on me and sent me to visit one of these "integrative doctors" (dont know the proper term) but they usually cover many aspects, not just a speciality.
This last doctor ran a lot of blood tests and suggested a SIBO test (hydrogen and methane). I didn't follow the rules prior to the test (a mistake) but since the appointments were very difficult to get, I took it anyway. I got positive for methane SIBO and a constant but high hydrogen level. I took the treatment which involved antibiotics and a very stringent diet (plus a bunch of vitamins and other things). First day into the diet and symptoms got a lot worse since the lack of food (wheat derived, specially) was making me feel "unfull" and that's usually what triggers it. Three or four days into the treatment and the BB was gone entirely. I still had the excess saliva, and the bad taste just a little bit. But at least I could last 4/5 hours without eating and feeling this horrendous taste on my mouth. The change was amazing. I already finished the treatment one week ago and its been almost one entire month without BB. I assume the excess saliva is from a different source and it was probably making things worse. Of course I'll keep an eye on things since I know SIBO can make a comeback easily. I'll also keep some things I've learn from the diet. Super low sugar and try to avoid wheat (if anything, sourdough). Also get rid of sugary snacks like oreo and stuff.
I know my symptoms are different of what people usually describe here but hopefully it could help someone.

Every day i ponder the existence of everything, the nature of consciousness, and purely the nature of existence.
If your on this forum, I'm sure you do to. And the vast majority of your thoughts result in a never-ending cycle of questions, "answers", then more questions and so on and so forth. In turn resulting in the never-ending process of questioning the nature of existence.
today I was having a philosophical discussion with my data structures & algorithms class/ teacher in my class where he suggested the idea:
"Is the consciousness a side effect of the brain, or is the brain a side effect of consciousness." I may have gotten his words wrong, but the core concept that we discuss (and I would love to hear your opinions on) is the idea of consciousness possibly existing outside of the brain. According to the laws of physics, neuroscience, and so on.. consciousness has arisen from the processes of the brain.
yet one thing we often forget to ponder is the simple fact that the universe and us are both comprised of atoms and the same elements. Without consciousness or intelligence, there would be no one to observe or experience the universe. Therefore, it seems like the universe which gave birth to existence, yet it was still missing one key component: the ability to experience itself.
Therefore, conscious intelligent life has emerged being the medium for the universe to experience itself.
My teacher then asked, "Why would the universe want to experience itself?"
it's a big question. one with no answer. but a fun and maybe scary question to ponder..
well, according to modern science, the entirety of consciousness is a side effect of the brain.
yes. correct.
But.. if the universe truly wanted to experience itself in all of its glory it would need different forms:
one that can fly (a bird), one that can run on all fours(dog,etc..), one that can swim(fish), and of course one that can make space shuttles that bring us into the galaxy itself(humans).
It seems like the universe has done a pretty good job at developing all forms of life that can experience itself in almost all ways! if I was the universe I would be pretty happy with my options!
now.. lets not forget, the computer needs a CPU/GPU just like we need a Brain.
So along with the ability to fly, run, walk etc.. there needs to be a control panel, there needs to be a seat in which the universe can be the pilot.
Similar to getting into a car that can steer, the universe sits in the brain to control the body(s) in the universe.
almost like a computer needs a mainframe and CPU as mentioned before.
Of course, none of this will work in a computer without electricity. Electricity sort-of gives "life", and the computers hardware gives all the ability it needs to function.
yet when we unplug the computer, the electricity flow breaks and the computer is turned off. thus its "life" is eliminated.
Now Lets observe human life that way.
our bodies and brains are the full-fledged machines that contain everything we need to experience life.
So what if the same way the brain controls our body, the universe gives life to control each neuron and atom in our brain.
As computers, they have an outlet to an electricity source, with a cord and outlet.
As humans, our outlet is the universe, with an invisible string that is connecting us to all that exists.
We are not humans.
Dogs are not dogs.
Trees are not trees.
We just use these terms to explain the things we experience.
Life itself is an abstraction.
When talking to someone you know. You don't really know whats going on. You just have an idea of who they are, and what the current moment is, in a way that makes sense to you.
We are great at this! its how we make sense of the world; Through abstraction. Explanation is an interface between us and whatever this existence is.
Im not here to debunk science, I'm not here to force philosophical or religious views.
But one thing is for sure. We are indeed the universe experiencing itself.
Right now, we are inhabiting one body. We are what we would consider an "I" with a self-identity.
we will build our character continuously until we die.
Sure. we will die. we will all die.
But consciousness will continue. Through others in the ever-expansive universe.
As the universe was using all life as its vessel to experience itself.
When a living physical form dies, does it really die?
what really happened?
Of course the brain has died, the body has died, that instance of consciousness is gone. Yes.
But what really, really, really happened there!?
One minute they were here.. And now they are gone...
Do you know what that was? or do you simply know the physical processes in which you observed?
Well Im afraid that observation is all we have... So this won't do much good in a scientific/research lab.
I don't think we will ever break that question.
That question is left for the last stage we pass through.
The stage where this body is of no more use to us, and thus is dropped.
After all, why would the universe need your old decrepit body when it has the grand selection of brains/bodies across all existence? :)

Disclaimer: CA may be innocent in the grand scheme of things. There is currently no evidence to the contrary. We are little pattern-recognizing machines, and we need to be careful how much red string we use lest we discredit ourselves. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
I would like to revisit something that has stuck out to me in the song 6:16 in LA [1]. At the beginning of the song, we hear what seems to be a ventilator [2]. Besides the following bar about "survival," there does not seem to be strong link between ventilator sound effects and the song itself.
At the end of the song, Kendrick asks Drake what "Mike" would do [3]. The literal take is that "Mike" is Michael Jackson, because Drake refers to him in First Person Shooter: "What the fuck, bro? I'm one away from Michael, Nigga, beat it, nigga, beat it, what?" [4]
Drake is one more Billboard #1 placement from beating Michael Jackson's 4th place record. Kendrick's response could be interpreted several ways--see source #3 for examples, including a possible reference to the "man in the mirror." I think that the simplest answer is the best one as a rule, so in all likelihood Kendrick is refuting Drake's self-comparison to Michael Jackson.
That being said...
EP's alleged FB name is Mike-Myers, which is an alias and not actually EP's real name (which I will not be sharing). Is it coincidence that the HoE's event takes place shortly after Halloween? Is it a coincidence that it appears to be horror-themed in some way, given the "Saw" trailer [5] that EP has released?
Read the following lyrics and ask yourself--is it a stretch to think that Kendrick is asking Drake what EP would do?
​
But let me tell you some game 'cause I can see you, my lil' homie
You playin' dirty with propaganda, it blow up on ya
You're playin' nerdy with Zack Bia and Twitter bots
But your reality can't hide behind wifi
Your lil' memes is losin' steam, they figured you out
The forced opinions is not convincin', y'all need a new route
It's time that you look around on who's around you
Before you figure that you're not alone, ask what Mike would do [3]
​
It is honestly wild how many coincidences there are in these lyrics, compared to the CCTV footage and EPs current activity. So let's brainstorm:
(a) What is the sound at the beginning of the song--is it actually a ventilator? What is the significance of a ventilator sound effect in regards to this song?
(b) What would "Mike" do? As in what would EP do? What would Michael Jackson do?
(c) What else is significant that I may be missing?
​
Sources:

1. https://soundcloud.com/freetheplay/6-16
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRauFpkGYQk&t=17s
3. https://genius.com/Kendrick-lamar-6-16-in-la-lyrics
4. https://genius.com/Drake-first-person-shooter-lyrics
5. https://nitter.poast.org/EbonyPrince2k24

Im 17 and my main hobbies for the past 2ish years are reading and watching science fiction and sometimes fantasy (ie dune, lotr, foundation, ursula k le guin, lovecraft, star wars, star trek sometimes but im not that invested in it, bladerunner, both the 3 body problem show and books etc etc)
More and more lately i feel like a complete loser for liking these things, ive been having a healthy balance of enjoying my hobbies and being a normal functioning human being but i cant help like feeling its a waste of my time. They used to be a source of comfort during difficult days and just difficult periods of my life but now whenever i come home from school and feel like human trash and pick up a scifi book to read or put on a movie or show i just feel like even more of a loser and end up doom scrolling the rest of the day.
I think it might be because i dont have as many friends as i did when i started reading these kinds of books and that i also broke up with my boyfriend like a month ago but idk, i feel like i should be doing more teenager stuff like going out to clubs and shit (and i do enjoy clubs and drinking, i dont feel peer pressured) and also it feels like everyone i meet whos into this stuff is way older than me and also whenever i bring them up my friends scoff or make fun of me or say that what i like is trash and one time one of them threatened to hit me cause i said im gonna go watch dune part two (nothing against you older folk, but i wanna hang out with kids my age lol and also i know these are probably not the healthiest friendships but i prefer this than sitting alone in school during breaks in a corner reading some star wars book)
Dont sugarcoat your answers if it is a waste of my time, and if its not and its something i should continue enjoying whats some advice to get rid of this feeling and start fully enjoying these books again. I get random bursts of feeling very passionate about these things but it doesnt last like it used to and just end up feeling dumb after it goes away.
I should be telling this to my therapist but i dont have the balls

Traded in my eco diesel for this beauty today. Spent 30k. Previous owner has made it where she can breathe properly, unfortunately I didn’t get any info on who or how they tuned her. Is there any way for me to know? I’m assuming it was a bench tune since there’s no programmer or selector in the truck, any info on how to figure out what’s what would be helpful.