Most likely diagnosis
Patient 30F recently pregnant (2020-2021,2021-2022,2023-2024) and was covid positive on may 1. Was on aspirin therapy for avoiding preeclampsia through 6 week’s postpartum period. Presents with regurgitation of acid when lying flat and unable to drink without burning sensation and little to no food intake. Upper abdominal localized pain could be either small intestine, stomach, or beginning of large intestine area. Very high stress levels. Bowel movements are gas/diarrhea mix on Vancomycin after recent antibiotics use of augmentin and pantoprazole mix for presumably c diff but tested negative for c diff toxin b 4 days into vancomycin treatment.Did live with an infected H Pylori positive patient in her home. Do you believe she has stomach cancer, bowel obstruction, ulcerative colitis, or chrons? Whats the likely cause of this severe burning pain, knot like feeling and other symptoms? Reports feeling better after starting Vanco, Pepcid and Maalox combo, but the symptoms go up and down. Is there cancer hiding or being masked?

I am traveling to work from greater NY area into Singapore
I'm considering flying either Emirates business class or Singapore Business class. I've flied neither before so not sure which is better. I'm a united quest and mileage plus member.
Here are some details:
Singapore: 19 H nonstop direct to Singapore. I can use my United mileage plus account and get points Plane is Airbus A350-900
Emirates: 21h 50 m total, with a stop in Dubai. Emirates is not part of Star Alliance, but I found this which indicates that some points might be transferrable but I'm not sure how this works https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/mileageplus/partners/emirates.html
Plane to Dubai is Airbus industrie A380-800 PAX Plane from Dubai to Singapore is Boeing 777-300ER
I'm not someone who can afford business class outside of work, and it would be nice to experience next level luxury whilst I have this opportunity.
Is it better to go for Singapore and get the points or is Emirates business luxury worth an experience once in my life time? Is it still possible to accrue United points on Emirates to some extent
For Reference, my work purchases the flights for me so I dont get CC points, but Im able to add my frequent flyer number where possible

This may be more Reddit centric, but I don't know any other forums out there.
I feel like TV fandoms on Reddit take TV show discussions to an unrealistic level, forgetting that these shows are fiction and stuff happens because the writers willed it so to create drama and/or comedy. Armchair psychologists try to explain the inner workings of the mind of a fictional character. Sometimes it's fun and leads to good discussions, but some people really get up in arms about certain topics (e.g. The Office's Jim and Pam).
I guess I wonder what it was like before the internet. Would people gather around the water cooler at work and talk about the latest episode of M*A*S*H? Would they also try to psychoanalyze the characters' actions? Or just talk about how cool a scene was and repeat quotes from the show?

Truth and Reconciliation sounds just a touch silly and overblown when you think of some of the groups that have gone through the process, but there's such animosity on both sides of this shitshow, and people actually getting hurt, so maybe it's a potentially worthwhile framing. All of the other versions sounded like corporate workshops anyway.
As much as I'd like to believe the GC will just come to their senses en masse one day, I don't see it happening, and, as we remain stubbornly corporeal, that does leave us with a problem.
What I actually do believe is that most people who have parroted GC talking points are not awful people. I believe they are doing the best they can and believe themselves to be acting in an important and justified manner.
I think that's important because that means we are dealing with, in essence, people who care about the world and want to make it a better place - even though their focus is horribly misguided. I have to believe that when faced with real trans people, when forced to truly engage with us on a personal level, they will find it hard to retain the animosity.
Who represents each community would be a doozy of course but it doesn't need to be a small room. You'd need independent facilitators of course. Of course very few on either side have any real power but maybe it could take some energy out of the situation.
Stupidest idea of the day? By all means tell me to 'get a job, hippy'.

Are you ready to embark on a unique D&D adventure like no other? Join The Imaginarium, a vibrant and dynamic D&D pbp server where your imagination is the only limit! We are a new kind of Westmarch server and are looking for dreamers to join us. We are an 18+ server. Bring your abandoned characters for a second life. All are welcome as is or could become.
🌟 Key Features: Player Dreams: Your personal space awaits! Create your dream home, castle, city, shop, or restaurant. As your own DM, you control everything in your dream.
Shared Dreams: Find and interact with other Imagineers in common spaces. While you can exert some control, this shared environment fosters collaboration and creativity.
Nightmares: Face dangerous, twisted adventures where the rules can change. Magic might fail, everything could have only one hit point, and combat may not always be the solution.
Flexible Character Creation: Approve your own character sheets! You set the rules for yourself.
DM Flexibility: Everyone is their own DM in dreams. In groups, the group selects a DM. In worlds, a set DM oversees adventures.
Leveling Up: Decide when to level up. Create characters from levels 1 to 20.
Gold and Magic Items: Conjure or find whatever you wish in your dreams. In worlds, gold and gear may not work the same, adding an extra layer of challenge.
🛠️ What We Offer: Diverse Rulesets: Default to 5e, but any ruleset, including homebrew, is welcome. Worlds will advertise their rules, and groups make the final decision.
Event Creation: Our staff organizes the server, creates events, and writes narratives for dreams and nightmares. Each narrative is a one-shot or sample combat with a roleplaying focus, offering unique and non-combat solutions.
Unlimited Characters: There is no limit to the number of characters you can play. Bring characters from other servers and give them a second life here.
Channel Ownership: Own your dream channel, shared dream space, and even link to an external private server for your player world.
Collaborative Guilds: Pool dreams with other players to create a collective space. A minimum of 5 players can come together to form a guild with its own category.
ERP and NSFW: is not allowed in public spaces. Please create private threads. All participants must be 18+. Player dreams are private by default, but the channel name will need a tag for this purpose. Which you must request before using it for ERP or NSFW content.
🎉 Join Us Today! Dive into the limitless possibilities of The Imaginarium. Whether you seek thrilling adventures, creative roleplaying, or a place to bring your characters to life, we welcome you to our magical world.
🔗 Join the Imaginarium Today! https://discord.com/invite/hD6qrDnBay

Taken from: https://www.theringer.com/movies/2024/5/21/24161120/greatest-movie-car-chase-scenes-ranked-furiosa-mad-max-saga
In honor of the imminent ‘Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,’ we’re shifting into high gear to determine the best chase scene in cinema history
By Miles Surrey May 21, 2024, 6:30am EDTGetty Images/Ringer illustration
After wowing audiences with Mad Max: Fury Road, director George Miller returns to the franchise’s post-apocalyptic wastelands for Furiosa, the epic origin story of the eponymous heroine (now played by Anya Taylor-Joy), premiering on Friday. As the follow-up to one of the greatest action films ever made, it’s hard to overstate the hype for Furiosa, and that was before word got out about a showstopping 15-minute sequence that required nearly 200 stuntpeople and took 78 days to shoot. While Furiosa will have its own distinct flavor, as is true of every Mad Max movie, there’s one thing that unites these projects: intense, jaw-dropping scenes of vehicular mayhem. And what better way to honor the franchise than by celebrating what it does best?
Ahead of Furiosa’s release, we’ve put together our definitive ranking of the best car chases in cinema. There weren’t any strict rules in place, other than capping the list at 20—mostly for my own sanity—and limiting every franchise to one entry. (Apologies to Fury Road’s kickass predecessor The Road Warrior.) We also won’t discriminate against scenes that feature motorbikes, so long as cars (and/or trucks) remain part of the equation. As for what, exactly, constitutes a good car chase? Like list making, it’s bound to be subjective, but I tend to gravitate toward two key elements: the skill of the stuntwork on display and the ways in which a filmmaker conveys the action in relation to the story. (Also, the less CGI, the better.) Buckle up, ’cause we’re not wasting any time shifting into high gear.

20. Quantum of Solace (2008)

There have been some memorable car chases in the James Bond franchise: the first sequence featuring the iconic Aston Martin DB5 in Goldfinger, the corkscrew jump in The Man With the Golden Gun, the Lotus Esprit submarine in The Spy Who Loved Me. But I’m going with a somewhat controversial pick here: Quantum of Solace. There are many issues with Quantum of Solace—namely, it was one of the most high-profile blockbusters affected by the 2007-08 writers strike—but its opening scene isn’t one of them. Picking up right where Casino Royale left off, we find Bond (Daniel Craig) evading henchmen through the narrow roads around Italy’s Lake Garda. The frenetic, furious chase mirrors Bond’s sense of anguish after losing Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), the woman he opened his heart to, and his relentless quest for answers. It’s a thrilling tone-setter for Quantum of Solace and one that doesn’t overstay its welcome, capped off by Bond sending his final pursuers flying off a cliff:
If we’re being honest, though, it feels like James Bond has yet to create a franchise-defining car chase. Perhaps that’s a mission the newest 007, whoever it ends up being, can undertake.

19. Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation (2015)

The Mission: Impossible franchise is no stranger to electrifying chase scenes, the best of which find Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt working up his heart rate. When it comes to action behind the wheel, though, Fallout tends to dominate the discussion—even on this very website. But I think the vehicular chase in Rogue Nation is being slept on. What we have is effectively two sequences for the price of one: The first finds Hunt pursuing Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) by car through the narrow streets of Casablanca alongside some nefarious henchmen; the second sees him continue the chase outside the city on motorbike. (Adding to the chaos: Hunt had only just been resuscitated, and he’s clearly not all there.) In terms of death-defying stunts for the audience’s entertainment, a helmetless Cruise taking corners like a MotoGP racer is child’s play compared to his other exploits, but the actor’s authentic reaction to scraping his knee on the road underlines that there’s no one else in Hollywood doing it like him:
We’ll be sure to update this ranking if and when Cruise does something even more dangerous down the road, pun unintended.

18. Vanishing Point (1971)

A movie that counts the likes of Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino among its biggest fans, Vanishing Point is the first of a few entries on this ranking that’s essentially one extended car chase. The film stars Barry Newman as Kowalski, a man tasked with delivering a Dodge Challenger T 440 Magnum from Colorado to California while eluding police across four states. One of Kowalski’s most memorable run-ins comes when a guy driving a Jaguar E-Type convertible challenges him to an impromptu race. Incredibly, we’re expected to believe the man in the Jag comes out of this crash in one piece:
Vanishing Point might not boast the impressive production values of other movies on this list, but considering Tarantino would go on to feature a white Challenger in Death Proof, its influence in the car cinema canon is undeniable.

17. Fast Five (2011)

Let’s face it, Fast & Furious has seen better days. Some believe the franchise’s dip in quality coincided with the death of Paul Walker; others are dismayed by the pivot from street racing to absurd feats of superherodom—emphasis on the Dom. Perhaps it’s a bit of both, but the very best movie in the series, Fast Five, manages to strike the perfect balance: It’s a relatively grounded heist thriller that nevertheless takes the franchise to ridiculous new heights. After Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew steal $100 million from a Brazilian kingpin, they drag the entire bank vault holding the money through the streets of Rio de Janeiro, all while being pursued by authorities. It’s a delightfully destructive sequence that does untold damage to Rio’s infrastructure and features some of the most bone-crunching crashes committed to film:
If the Fast franchise is going to break out of its recent slump, it would do well to remember that there’s nothing better than letting its heroes live their lives a quarter mile at a time—no detours to outer space required.

16. The Blues Brothers (1980)

A good car chase isn’t reserved just for action flicks: Comedies can get in on the act, too. In The Blues Brothers, starring the recurring Saturday Night Live characters played by John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd, the beloved bandmates must prevent the foreclosure of the orphanage where they were raised by scrounging together $5,000. Naturally, that’s easier said than done: Along the way, the Blues Brothers draw the attention of neo-Nazis, a country-and-western band, and local police. While The Blues Brothers has amusing gags and musical numbers, its chase sequences with the Brothers behind the wheel of a 1974 Dodge Monaco are what really steal the show—and none are better than a climactic pursuit across Chicago. More than 60 old police cars were used in the film, some of which are wrecked in a comically over-the-top pileup:
The sheer scale of The Blues Brothers’ final set piece is commendable in and of itself—as is the movie’s commitment to treating real-life cars like a bunch of Hot Wheels.

15. Baby Driver (2017)

For good and for ill, Edgar Wright’s movies exude an abundance of style, and Baby Driver is no exception. Baby Driver is centered on a clever gimmick: The action works in tandem with its soundtrack because the film’s protagonist, Baby (Ansel Elgort), suffers from tinnitus and constantly plays music to drown out the ringing. When everything’s clicking into place, Baby Driver feels like a supersized series of music videos, and nothing hits quite like its opening sequence. Baby acts as the getaway driver for a bank robbery while listening to the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion’s “Bellbottoms.” The ensuing chase works around rhythms of the song, as if Baby’s Subaru WRX were the star of its own dance number. Take nothing away from the actual driving, either, which puts the rally car to good use:
Baby Driver’s gimmick stretches a little thin by the end, but it’s hard to deny the crowd-pleasing power of Wright’s film when it’s firing on all cylinders.

14. The Raid 2 (2014)

With a trio of kickass Indonesian martial arts films under his belt, Gareth Evans has established himself as one of the most exciting action directors on the planet—someone who seems most in his element staging positively brutal hand-to-hand combat. In The Raid 2, however, Evans also brought his signature brand of carnage to the road. While there’s some cleverly executed close-quarters fighting within the confines of an SUV, courtesy of Iko Uwais’s hard-hitting protagonist, what really cements this sequence’s greatness are the moments when Evans turns the cars into an extension of the characters’ fists:
This belongs in an entirely new category of combat: car fights. There are so many action scenes in The Raid 2 worth writing home about—the kitchen showdown is an all-timer—but the fact that Evans casually tossed in an unforgettable car chase shows why he’s one of one.

13. The Driver (1978)

I’ll say this for Walter Hill’s The Driver: It sure lives up to its title. In this stripped-down thriller—one where none of the characters have a name—we follow the Driver (Ryan O’Neal), a getaway driver who has become a thorn in the side of the LAPD. In the film’s best scene, we see its taciturn protagonist living up to his reputation. With the Driver behind the wheel of a 1974 Ford Galaxie, a cat-and-mouse game unfolds when a handful of police cars are hot on his tail. What I love about this sequence is the pared-down nature of it all: The Driver outwits the cops as much as he outraces them. (Though, ironically, that wasn’t entirely by design: As Hill later explained, an accident on the last night of shooting meant they had to cobble together what had already been filmed.) Frankly, you’d never know the difference from the finished article:
If the general vibes of The Driver seem familiar, that’s because it was a major inspiration for Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive, which just so happened to feature an unnamed protagonist (Ryan Gosling) evading police through the streets of Los Angeles.

12. The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

The shaky-cam style of the Bourne franchise isn’t for everyone—just ask John Woo—but credit where it’s due: These movies know how to deliver a good chase scene. (A friendly reminder that The Bourne Legacy is an underrated gem with an awesome motorbike sequence to boot.) But there’s one Bourne chase that stands above the rest: the Moscow getaway in The Bourne Supremacy. After being wounded by the Russian assassin Kirill (Karl Urban), Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) hijacks a taxi, with both the police and Kirill in hot pursuit. This isn’t the kind of sequence that lingers on any one shot; instead, what makes it work is the frenetic nature of the editing, which allows the viewer to feel like they’re in Bourne’s fight-or-flight headspace:
If I’m being honest, I’m usually one of those people who doesn’t like the Bourne movies’ shaky-cam style, but when it’s executed with such craftsmanship, you can’t help but get caught up in its adrenaline-pumping power.

11. The Seven-Ups (1973)

Philip D’Antoni was the producer of two movies featuring Hall of Fame car chases, Bullitt and The French Connection, the latter of which won him an Oscar for Best Picture. And with his lone directorial feature, The Seven-Ups, D’Antoni sought to craft an iconic sequence of his own. The film stars Roy Scheider as NYPD detective Buddy Mannuci (elite Italian American name; I can practically smell the gabagool), who commands a unit handling major felony cases that lead to seven-plus-year prison sentences; that’s why they’re known as the Seven-Ups. Midway through the movie, when one of the team members is killed by two shooters who flee the scene, Buddy chases after them. The 10-minute sequence, which starts in the Upper West Side before moving out of the city, is thrillingly immersive, alternating between close-ups of the characters and wider shots of all the damage they’ve caused. But the chase’s defining moment comes right at the end, when Buddy narrowly avoids a grisly death:
The sequence isn’t quite at the level of Bullitt or The French Connection—very few are—but D’Antoni still manages to leave an unmistakable imprint on the car chase canon.

10. Death Proof (2007)

If you ask Quentin Tarantino, Death Proof, his knowingly trashy tribute to exploitation cinema, is the worst movie he’s ever made. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot to admire about the film, which honors the unsung heroes of Hollywood: stunt performers. The first half of Death Proof follows three female friends who cross paths with Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), a misogynistic serial killer who takes them out in his “death-proof” Chevy Nova. Fourteen months later, a group that includes stuntwoman Zoë Bell, playing herself, also lands on Mike’s radar. As Bell and her friends test out a ’70s Challenger, she performs a “ship’s mast” stunt, clinging onto the hood of the car with fastening belts. Unfortunately, when Mike pursues the women, it puts Bell in a precarious situation. Most of the entries on this list celebrate some next-level driving skills, but Death Proof’s inclusion is all about Bell pulling off one of the wildest stunts you’ll ever see. She’s quite literally hanging on for dear life:
If the Academy handed out Oscars to stunt performers—and let’s hope it does happen one day—Bell would’ve won in a landslide.

9. To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)

William Friedkin was already responsible for an all-time great car chase in The French Connection (more on that later), but the filmmaker made a commendable bid to outdo himself with To Live and Die in L.A. In this neo-noir thriller, Secret Service agent Richard Chance (William L. Petersen) is hell-bent on arresting an expert counterfeiter, Rick Masters (Willem Dafoe), who kills Chance’s partner days before his retirement. To capture Masters, Chance and his new partner, John Vukovich (John Pankow), attempt to steal $50,000 from a jewelry buyer for an undercover operation. The sting goes bad when the buyer, who is later revealed to be an undercover FBI agent, is killed and a group of gunmen goes after Chance and Vukovich. It’s a clever inversion of the usual car chase formula—this time, it’s the lawmen running away from the criminals. The outside-the-box thinking extends to the film’s most astonishing stretch, in which Chance evades the gunmen by driving into oncoming traffic:
The fact that Friedkin shot the chase at the end of filming—in case anything disastrous happened to the actors—underscores just how risky the endeavor was. The pulse-pounding results speak for themselves.

8. The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

The Matrix sequels have never been held in high esteem, but I’m ready to live my truth: The Matrix Reloaded fucking rules. (If anyone’s got a problem with this take, file your complaints with the Architect.) What’s more, the film happens to boast the finest action set piece of the franchise: the highway chase. After Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) free the Keymaker (Randall Duk Kim), a program capable of creating shortcuts within the Matrix, they’re pursued by the Twins (Neil and Adrian Rayment). Morpheus once warned that going on the freeway was “suicide,” and it doesn’t take long to see why: The chase draws the attention of several Agents, who repeatedly take over the bodies of other drivers on the road. The scene is the best of both worlds: There’s some incredible stuntwork on display, including when Moss weaves around on a Ducati, and CGI augments some feats of superhuman strength. But the most jaw-dropping aspect of the sequence is how it came together, as the production spent $2.5 million to construct its own highway (!) on California’s Alameda Island. If that weren’t unique enough, I’m pretty sure Reloaded is also the only movie in existence in which a katana takes out an SUV:
The Matrix remains the Wachowskis’ masterpiece, but don’t get it twisted: The filmmakers were still cooking with gas in the sequel.

7. Gone in 60 Seconds (1974)

Size isn’t everything, but for H. B. Halicki, who produced, wrote, directed, and starred in Gone in 60 Seconds, it’s certainly part of the package. The indie action flick follows Maindrian Pace (Halicki), a Los Angeles insurance investigator who has a lucrative side hustle jacking high-end cars. The plot kicks into motion when a South American drug lord enlists Pace to nab 48 cars within five days in exchange for $400,000. Of course, Gone in 60 Seconds is best known for what happens after Pace is caught stealing a 1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1, when he leads police on a chase that lasts a whopping 40 minutes. (More than 90 cars were destroyed in the process.) Halicki, for his part, did all the driving himself, including a spectacular jump off a makeshift ramp of crashed cars:
While Halicki wound up making a few more indies after Gone in 60 Seconds, he died in an accident on the set of its sequel. His legacy as a do-it-all daredevil, however, lives on.

6. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Long before James Cameron immersed himself in the world of Pandora, he was a pioneer of state-of-the-art visual effects. Case in point: Terminator 2: Judgment Day is credited for having the first CGI character in a blockbuster, the T-1000 (Robert Patrick), a killing machine composed of a futuristic liquid metal. But Cameron also understood that the CGI of that era shouldn’t be the main attraction: It worked best as a complement to the practical effects, as seen in Judgment Day’s epic viaduct chase. When the T-1000 tracks down a young John Connor (Edward Furlong) in a shopping mall, he’s saved at the last minute by the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), giving John a chance to escape on his dirt bike. As the T-1000 gives chase, the David and Goliath vibes between man and machine are further epitomized by the T-1000’s commandeering of a truck. The sequence already has a terrifying sense of urgency, but it hits another level when the T-1000 crashes through the viaduct like the Kool-Aid Man:
Big Jim is still revolutionizing what can be achieved with visual effects in the Avatar franchise, and while I cherish those movies, nothing beats his old-school showmanship.

5. Duel (1971)

The feature-length debut of Steven Spielberg—perhaps you’ve heard of him—the TV movie Duel is essentially one extended chase sequence between salesman David Mann (Dennis Weaver) and a sinister trucker determined to drive him off the road. I’ve attached a clip from the ending of the film, but that doesn’t do Duel justice. What cements this movie’s greatness is how it sustains an unbearable level of tension across its 90-minute running time—with a budget under $500,000, no less. Spielberg’s masterstroke is never once showing us the other driver, anthropomorphizing the truck itself as a monster. (You can see a lot of similarities with how he would build suspense in Jaws.) When Mann finally gets the upper hand, tricking his adversary into driving off a cliff, it feels like you can breathe again:
Spielberg would move on to bigger and better things after Duel, but considering how much the director accomplished with so little, you can’t help but wonder what else he could conjure up with limited resources.

4. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Like Duel, Fury Road is basically one long car chase—the difference is Miller got to work with a blockbuster budget, and made every cent of it count. It’s hard to pick a single standout sequence in Fury Road, but if I had to choose, I’d go with the first attack on the War Rig after Furiosa (Charlize Theron) flees with the wives of Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne). Here’s why: Think back to when you saw Fury Road for the first time, before you fully grasped the vehicular carnage that was in store. And then stuff like this kept happening:
To quote Steven Soderbergh’s thoughts on Fury Road: “I don’t understand how they’re not still shooting that film and I don’t understand how hundreds of people aren’t dead.” Whether or not Miller manages to one-up the action in Furiosa, the director is already in the pantheon.

3. The French Connection (1971)

We return to the Friedkin-verse for what may be his best film, The French Connection, the crime thriller based on Robin Moore’s 1969 nonfiction book of the same name. The story concerns two NYPD detectives, Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy “Cloudy” Russo (Roy Scheider), and their tireless pursuit of a French heroin smuggler. But while there’s plenty to admire about how The French Connection illustrates the thin line between police and criminals, its greatest claim to fame is its car chase. After Popeye narrowly survives a sniper attack, he goes after the shooter, who escapes on an elevated train. The ensuing sequence is true daredevil filmmaking that Friedkin shot without permits, leading to real crashes with New Yorkers that made the final cut. But Friedkin’s finest touch was mounting a camera to the front of the car, making the audience feel like they’re part of the action:
My Ringer colleague Justin Sayles believes The French Connection’s chase should’ve landed at no. 1, and I’m sure many folks will agree with him. Being the only film on this list to win Best Picture, however, is a solid consolation prize.

2. Bullitt (1968)

When it comes to modern car chases, all roads lead back to Bullitt. A Dad Cinema classic, the film stars Steve McQueen as Frank Bullitt, a San Francisco detective who pursues a group of mobsters after a key witness is killed in protective custody. In his search for answers, Bullitt realizes he’s being tailed by a couple of hitmen, and then turns the tables on them. From there, the chase is on. Aside from McQueen doing most of his own stunts behind the wheel of a Ford Mustang GT 390 Fastback, what’s so impressive about the sequence is how timeless it is. Even the little imperfections, like hubcaps repeatedly coming off the wheels, work to the film’s advantage, stressing just how much these drivers are living on a razor’s edge. It’s been more than 50 years since Bullitt revolutionized the car chase, and yet few movies since have felt like they’re pushing the envelope to such an exhilarating degree:
That the car driven by McQueen was recently sold at auction for $3.74 million, a then-record price for a Mustang, underlines Bullitt’s enduring legacy.

1. Ronin (1998)

“If I’m going to do a car chase,” filmmaker John Frankenheimer said in an interview with the American Society of Cinematographers, “I’m going to do a car chase that’s going to make somebody think about whether or not they want to do another one!” Boy, did he ever. In Frankenheimer’s late-career masterpiece, Ronin, the director actually incorporated several chases, but it’s the climactic sequence that stands alone as the greatest ever filmed. The movie concerns an international group of mercenaries who are hired to steal a mysterious briefcase; a series of double-crosses and double-bluffs ensue. But for the final chase, all you need to know is that Sam (Robert De Niro), a mercenary with ties to the CIA, is in pursuit of Deirdre (Natascha McElhone), an IRA operative in possession of the case. Winding through the streets and tunnels of Paris, what’s most striking is just how fluid it all feels. You’re completely engrossed in the chase’s forward momentum, captured from every conceivable angle; a symphony of controlled chaos. The driving styles even reflect the characters: Deirdre is reckless and impulsive, while Sam remains calm and controlled.
There are many worthy car chases in this ranking, but in my view, Ronin takes pole position. And while I can’t imagine a movie ever topping what Frankenheimer achieved, I’d love nothing more than to be proved wrong.

So, as the title says this is a post on the review and guide to VARC1000 course by Gejo Sir (the VARC God for me I'll say) 🤌🏻 First, I would like to add 2 important notes :)
Note 1 : I went through this year's VARC1000 course and it's very different from last year's course but I'll try to give you a review of it 🫠
Note 2 : You'll find many people suggesting and saying that "pirated content le le" and stuff. But I won't really suggest that. VARC1000 course is more than what the pirated content will offer. It's not just about VARC okay? It will help you with DILR and QA too (Last year Gejo sir had made videos on how he himself solved DILR and gives really amazing tips and tricks). There will be content/materials for GDPI prepration, profile analyser (which I didn't really find helpful tbh), calls predictor (which again turned out to be not so true in my case but for others it was helpful), daily vocab, GK section, WAT topics, your acads specific questions generally asked during PIs etc etc. All this you won't get in the pirated stuff. You'll just get the videos of his lecs that's it. Course hi lena bhai if possible 🙂
👉🏻 Coming to the course's details : This time they have divided the course into 4 sections Launch Phase, Enhance Phase, Advanced Phase and Peak Phase. And each phase (from Enhance Phase) will be launched in specific months from June onwards. As of now the Launch Phase is active 👀
Coming to the description of the phases : As per my understanding it's perfectly summed up to take you from the very basic (launch phase) to the advanced level (peak phase) 🔥
Focus more on the Core Lessons which Gejo Sir will teach you. He'll just tell you the methods and tricks in these videos ig (that's what happened in the last course) and then maybe he'll teach you to apply them. He'll take a particular RC and solve it. Focus on how he deals with all this okay? Obv take the learnings and develop your own strategy/method (you can copy him but we all can't be like him) 😂
He'll throw some tests before the start of the video.. apply your brains there and see how you do. Then he'll also come up with the strategy lessons (very important) wherein he'll tell you about how to approach the VARC section in those 40 mins and what approach you should have. The core lessons, application lessons and strategy lessons were launched together last year in the course and were really helpful! Till now all the is for RC btw. For VA the material won't be much different but he'll teach you specially about how to deal with the VA too!
Then comes the Daily Article Dose! Do it! Roz karo! It's really good. He'll upload the solutions for it. For every article dose he'll do that and solve it for you. Also, throughout this course you'll find a diverse range of RCs! Humanities, Philosophy, Natural Sciences, Arts etc etc. Everything. And I hope that like last year, this year also he'll make seperate videos for every genre! It's really helpful in that sense! 🍻😌
Coming to the tests! He'll give you a lot of sectional tests (minimum 10 sectional tests) and previous year ke course ke bhi kuch tests alagse (this happened in the last year's course). So you need not worry about the sectionals. You'll get a satisfactory number of those. He'll also solve some sectionals for you. You'll be able to see how he solves the VARC section (trust me you'll be amazed seeing his way of solving). You'll also get Daily Drills where you'll have small tests or say 1-2 RCs and a few VA questions etc. this will also be there. Also, you'll get PY CAT papers as mocks and also as sectional tests separately! So that's also a done deal!! 🍻✨
Don't miss Gejo sir's live sessions! He'll have 1-2 every month ig. And those will be really helpful. It's an interactive session so you can ask your doubts there. He's a very funny guy so you won't be bored. He'll also give you some videos (hopefully) on how to approach DILR! He's a genius in DILR also (atleast for me) 💥
Then comes the Telegram Group of VARC1000 where Gejo sir will also be there! It's a very interactive group and very much helpful. A really nice place to be in I'll say as you'll find serious aspirants mostly.
I hope that I was able to include most of the important things of this course and if needed I'll update this post in the future! :')
Overall I'll say that this course is worth it? It'll definitely improve your VARC skills and understanding if you follow it religiously. As I have said... This course is not just about VARC but there are many many things in it and it'll turn out to be helpful overall! 🩵 Do share this review with your friends and other aspirants! 😼
All the best with your prep! If you have anything to add about the course or your opinions then feel free to drop it in the comments! ;')

Dubai, the city of towering ambitions and global business, thrives on strong leadership. Here at HNI.ae, we understand that effective leaders are the backbone of any successful organization. That's why we're dedicated to connecting you with the premier leadership training programs in Dubai, designed to equip you with the skills and vision to take your career and your team to the next level.

Why Invest in Leadership Training?

In today's dynamic business landscape, effective leadership is no longer a luxury, it's a necessity. Leadership training in Dubai offers a wealth of benefits, including:

Enhanced decision-making: Leaders are constantly faced with complex choices. These programs hone your analytical skills, strategic thinking, and problem-solving abilities, allowing you to make informed decisions that drive results.
Improved communication: Exceptional leaders are clear communicators who can inspire and motivate teams. Training programs focus on honing your communication style, both verbal and non-verbal, ensuring your message resonates with your team.
Empowering teams: Building a high-performing team is crucial for success. Leadership training equips you with the tools to foster a collaborative and inclusive environment, empowering individuals to contribute their best.
Increased emotional intelligence: Leaders who understand their emotions and those of others are better equipped to navigate challenges and build strong relationships. Training programs delve into emotional intelligence, helping you become a more self-aware and empathetic leader.
Enhanced adaptability: The business world is constantly evolving. Leadership training equips you with the agility and critical thinking skills to adapt to change and lead your team through unforeseen circumstances.
Finding the Perfect Leadership Training Program in Dubai

With a plethora of leadership training programs available in Dubai, choosing the right one can feel overwhelming.
HNI.ae is here to guide you. Consider these factors:

Your Leadership Development Goals: Are you looking to hone your communication skills, become a more visionary leader, or build a stronger team? Identify your specific goals to find a program that aligns with your needs.
Your Leadership Style: Do you prefer a hands-on approach or a more delegative style? Understanding your natural leadership style allows you to choose programs that complement your strengths and address areas for improvement.
The Program Format: Leaders are busy! Choose a program that fits seamlessly into your schedule. Options include intensive workshops, part-time programs, or even online learning modules for enhanced flexibility.
Trainer Credentials and Reputation: Look for programs led by experienced and respected facilitators with proven track records in developing successful leaders.
HNI.ae: Your Gateway to Top Leadership Training

At HNI.ae, we are committed to connecting you with the best leadership training programs in Dubai. We partner with leading training institutions to offer a diverse range of programs, catering to various levels of experience and leadership styles.

Here's a glimpse of what you can expect:

Programs for Aspiring Leaders: Develop the foundational leadership skills needed to take your first steps into a leadership role.
Leadership Development for Managers: Sharpen your existing leadership expertise, focusing on delegation, performance management, and team motivation.
Executive Leadership Programs: Designed for senior leaders, these programs focus on strategic leadership, navigating complex situations, and leading organizational change.
Invest in Yourself, Invest in Your Team

Leadership training is an investment in yourself, your career, and ultimately, the success of your team. By honing your leadership abilities, you become a catalyst for positive change, driving innovation and achieving outstanding results.

Contact HNI.ae today and let us guide you towards the perfect leadership training program in Dubai. Unlock your leadership potential and take your career, and your team, to new heights!

How can we stop going around in circles with these corrupted nihilists? (basically an extreme religious-nut but in reverse; no meaning, no value, no good/bad, nothing matters) I've compiled some of my thoughts/comments.

But first If you are not caught up yet:
1 Re: Vegan Gains ...The Militant Vegan Raffaela Interview - (May 12, 2024)
2 Vegan Gains is a sub-Jerkivest [5/11/24]
3 Moral Realism Debate w/ Inmendham - (May 16, 2024)
4 WTF #899: The vegan gains debate ... Value realism - (May 19, 2024)
5 Vegan Gains ...Denialism is the only nihilism [5/19/24]
also saw this Controversial Topics with Vegan Gains (Horse Riding, Bivalves, Depression, and much more!) - (May 11, 2024) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (he thinks in terms of some dogmatic religious brain-rot morality source of right/wrong, but a kind of reversed/opposite conclusion of it's absence, nihilism)
the very reason religion was invented in the first place was because humans by nature had a value-engine driving them & NEED for meaning, that's the irony. value gave rise to religion, religion never needed to grant value. The fact people can't grasp this. 🤦 ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎

Now onto the various arguments, sorry how long and out of order it is But the idea is to provoke you coming up with better ideas/arguments, and if you can critic and strenghen my and ultimately inmendham's arguments. The GOAL should be to Create a formal argument AKA a syllogism, modus ponens. Something clear and concise that can't be taken out of context or misinterpreted, as happened with the debate...

On the subject of Efilism, tread lightly, the philosophy and argument extends beyond merely focusing on suffering; it also includes the critical issue of consent violation. Its proponent and creator, Inmendham, argues for value realism, which contrasts starkly with the notion of subjective morality which I find illogical. While objective morality is full of baggage... often linked to outdated religious doctrine so on face value it's not fun or easy subject to broach... many contemporary non-religious ethicists ground it in realism. Personally me, inmendham and others see no use for the term "morality" as it's tainted. value-realism is the subject. Is it a value-laden universe or not?
it is not necessary to call TRUE/REAL right or wrong Objective, because if objective is defined as mind-independent than without minds there's nothing right/wrong to happen to, therefore THE discussion should be just regarding what is TRUE or NOT, subjective doesn't necessarily mean mere contrived opinion or preference but can be logical conclusion, e.g. you can conclude 2 + 2 = 4 as we understand these concepts of numbers to model reality but can you call it objective or mind-independent 2 + 2 = 4, or that math exists? Not really. As you require a modeler to model reality, an observer to make the observation, a mind to come to such accurate conclusions. To me, claiming there is no real right or wrong is akin to asserting that moral standards and ultimately the subject of Ethics is as fictitious as religion or Santa Claus, you just believe it cause you want to or have preference to. Why maintain this pretense if it's all a mere fabrication / contrivance?
Regarding subjective judgments such as determining "What's the tastiest potato chip or the most beautiful painting?", these are not factual assessments about the things themselves, The question itself is misleading, because the thing itself has none of those qualities objectively, Instead, such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by the interaction of our bodies and minds with these INPUT items, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences. You might get off more on certain female body part than another, it doesn't matter, the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant... not what specific fun or hobby gets you or them off or pushes their buttons.
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to that personal individual, or gross to another, and we can talk about intersubjective truths with averages overall. But one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually, as you are likely not even sharing the same exact experiences to judge differently. And one's very perception or framing of the experience changes the experience itself, no way around this truth. Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
It's important to recognize that differing opinions of personal taste do not inherently conflict in the way ethical contradictions do. With ethical matters, asserting that two diametrically opposed views are equally valid is problematic, either one is right and the other wrong, or both might be based on flawed reasoning. Pretending 2 opposing ethical views can be both equally right/true/correct is utter contradictory mush, either one of them must be right / wrong, or both are contrived meaningless nothing opinions, just made up. you wouldn't say whether one believes in god or not IS mere personal opinion/preference and such 2 opposing views can be equally right at same time, that's utter contradictory nonsense, by saying 2 opinions that gRAPE is both good & bad at same time are equally right opinons, right loses all meaning and you might as well say neither is right and both are wrong, they each have their own contrived fairytale delusion.
Now with Ethics of right / wrong, it does not depend on one single individual's preference or opinion, but taken as the whole, if you violate one without consent you still have to account for that since you are seemingly putting the weight on the preference otherwise preferences are utterly meaningless and irrelevant.
ALSO, Do you call whatever you prefer what's right, or do you prefer to try to do what is right?
Do you prefer to seek out what is the right most accurate conclusion given all the facts of reality, or contrive right to be what's in your preference/interest or personal gain?
I don't think VG or most these talking heads understand value-realism (problematic events within subjectivity/a non-physical but REAL reality of the mind). Obviously there's no objective divine or otherwise prime-directive moral-rules we must follow. Unfortunately Religion has poisened the conversation so much with archaic ideas and mushy terms like 'Morality'. Understand there is no 'moral truth', let alone an objective one, ofc if you pigeon-hole me or all realists into defending such nonsense it's easy to refute them. What I'm interested in is subject of Ethics, and to start whether or not value/problematic events exist or do not exist.
Here's a silly question by nihilists: "why is suffering bad?"
Response: How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
Or this: "prove suffering bad, objectively"
Also question-begging, obviously it is subjective. If such badness cannot exist mind-independently by definition.
"Prove suffering is bad, objectively"
is begging the question, because...
It strawmans / assumes the badness must be bad mind-independently, it isn't therefore, it isn't bad.
Answer this, evolutionarily do animals PERCEIVE being tortured skinned alive nail in the eye as BAD, or does it impose torture which we RECOGNIZE and define as Bad by definition?
If true PAIN/torture isn't bad then why does it exist evolutionarily? Answer: (problem -> solution) mechanism which functions as ability to learn & improved survival, this mechanism was reinforced over time as it worked.
inmendham & realists like myself argue: it is the case Descriptively, Objectively evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-value-judgements onto animals which function as a learning/problem solving mechanism. Fact is, the invention of 'PROBLEM' is something I/we/animals had nothing to do with... (no-free-will-choice) but are simply byproduct in observation of this fact.
If real PROBLEM(s) didn't truly exist then Arguably the word and conceptual understanding it points 👉 to wouldn't exist either. As if beings could be truly blind never seeing colors/vision yet pulling the idea out of thin air and conceiving of such a thing, how preposterous, that'd be giving human creativity/imagination way too much credit. The only nihilist argument then is that by evolution we & all feeling organisms are somehow ultimately deluded or have illusion of problem where there is none, which I find deeply implausible. Run the torture study/experiment a million times putting people's arm in the fire "yep still bad". Filtering out people who lack ability to feel pain of course.
As evolutionary biologists even states pain is a message to the animal "don't do that again". Can't get descriptively prescriptive more than that.
Are You Getting It?
The Ought is literally baked in as an IS. The is-ought gap to be bridged is a complete Red-Herring, yes you can't derive an Ought from an IS, because if you oughtn't do something, then it can never be BAD... problematic/BAD/torture can't mean anything if it doesn't scream OUGHT-not.
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
This is Checkmate. These are irrefutable Facts & Logical deductions.
So much for it all being false-perception, the very fact placebo patients perceive an otherwise harmless laser as BAD/painful makes it so. It's the TRUE reality in their mind and you can't deny that fact. It's also a fact believing a pain isn't really all that bad can make it so, but this doesn't make these value-laden experiences NOT real/true.
As per evolution, your body/brain's mechanisms must generate & impose a prescriptive-value-judgement / problematic event within your mind,
It's nagging, complaining, telling you keeping your hand on the hot stove is a mistake/problematic/bad. (not in itself but as a consequence)
I believe this brain making me write all this... is making an accurate assessment when it observe certain events to be problematic/bad where it's happening which is within subjectivity, where's your evidence my perceptions are fooling me or I'm somehow deluded? I witnessed the crime take place and you were nowhere near the crime scene yet you have the authority to claim otherwise as fact? (You are not simply agnostic to my problem suffering but a De-nihilist)
Once one accepts this evolutionary fact we can move on to more complicated questions regarding ethics, like how do weigh the good & the bad, conflicting preferences, etc. Otherwise, it's all pointless & futile, like arguing bivalves or wild-suffering with a non-vegan. They're just not on that level yet and it's a waste of time.
revised version of my other comment: I believe that many discussions around morality miss a crucial point about value-realism, which acknowledges problematic events within subjectivity, a non-physical but real reality of the mind. It is evident that there are no objective, divine, or prime-directive moral rules we must follow. Unfortunately, religion has muddied the conversation with archaic ideas and terms like 'morality'.
There is no 'moral truth,' especially not an objective one. If critics pigeonhole realists into defending such notions, it becomes easy to refute them. My interest lies in ethics and whether value/problematic events exist.
Consider this question by nihilists: "Why is suffering bad?"
Response: Suffering is identified because it feels bad, subjectively. Just as we subjectively understand 2+2=4, we can recognize suffering through its unpleasant experience.
When asked to "prove suffering is bad, objectively," this is question-begging, as the question assumes that the badness must exist independently of minds, which it does not by definition. This question straw-mans the issue by requiring mind-independent badness, ignoring the subjective nature of suffering. As if the quality of it being BAD must be granted by something outside the experience itself.
Evolutionary Perspective: Animals perceive and react to torture (e.g., being skinned alive) as bad because evolution has imposed mechanisms that signal harm. Pain serves as a problem-solving mechanism, reinforcing behaviors that enhance survival. If pain and suffering weren't inherently problematic, they wouldn’t exist in the form they do.
Realists like myself argue that evolution has objectively imposed prescriptive-value judgments on animals. The concept of 'problem' or 'bad' arises from these evolutionary mechanisms, not from free will. The existence of these concepts indicates the reality of these problematic experiences.
If real problems didn’t exist, neither would the concepts describing them. This is akin to how beings blind from birth wouldn’t conceive of color. Suggesting that evolutionary processes have universally deluded all feeling organisms into perceiving problems where there are none is implausible.
As evolutionary biologists state, pain signals to the animal, "don't do that again," which is descriptively prescriptive. The 'ought' is embedded within the 'is.' Thus, the is-ought gap is a red herring because prescriptive judgments are evolutionarily ingrained.
Again, How do you identify suffering? Based on the fact that it feels bad. (Yes subjectively) Just as we can subjectively understand 2+2 = 4
All you have to agree to is due to evolution it created torture which is decidedly negative/ inherently BAD, by definition. Otherwise it wouldn't feel bad or be torturous at all... THEN ask yourself, how can something be BAD yet it's not BAD to create that BAD?
Conclusion: By acknowledging that evolution created inherently negative experiences like torture, we accept that these experiences are bad by definition. Denying the badness of creating bad experiences is contradictory. Therefore, once recognizing the true reality of subjective experiences, only then we can move on to complex ethical questions about weighing good and bad and addressing conflicting preferences.
playing devil's advocate let's try Steelman their position and then arrive at the logical conclusions of it and then perhaps refute it. If they say: "veganism = right" realize there is no contradiction IF by 'right' they just mean it's literally nothing but their preference...
There's no goal to prefer to know/do what's right, RATHER what's right is whatever matches our personal preferences, so unlike flat earther vs round earth beliefs/CLAIMs which can contradict/conflict with each other since either 1 is right or both are wrong. Individual tastes don't.
Whereas if VG says 9 people gRAPE the 1 kid for fun is WRONG because he's a threshold-deontologist but Also RIGHT to a hedonistic utilitarian, Those views only contradict/conflict if they are making VALUE-claims or recognizing a problematic event take place. However, with VG apparently he would have to say he's not claiming or labelling anything as TRULY problematic at all but merely describing his preferences like flavor of ice cream...
Now, of course, as the realist, I find such a view more deplorable/worse than if they were merely agnostic on right/wrong. Cause it's one thing to say there's a right answer to questions of Ethics but we have no objective scientific basis to determine it yet or lack knowledge VS saying they have knowledge there is absolutely no right or wrong.
Under Anti-realism nihilism, what they mean by wrong/right, is just their preference, if I understand correctly (which I'm quite sure) Anti-realism nihilism reduces the Subject of Ethics down to nothing but you or someone else pontificating/opining (i.e "me no like torture") . It defends some sort of expressivism, emotivism, normative, prescriptive reduction of Ethics. Which I find lubricious and has to be a mistake,
I don't see anyone playing any different game even the nihilists invest their money and plan ahead for self-interest, no one truly signs up for torture for fun like it's no problem, and runs away from pleasure happiness as bad. Further, it stands to reason... since we can recognize objectively evolution created a punishment mechanism to enforce learning and survival, BAD/PROBLEM as a concept is something I/WE/Animals had nothing to do with. We didn't invent it, we recognize it and respond accordingly. Even evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated that pain is a message to the organism 'don't do that again!'
We must address further the flawed logic of VG and other nihilists reducing Ethics down to mere arbitrary preferences like potato chip flavor, or how much salt you prefer in the soup. As it is completely disanalogous & dishonest upon reflection. QUOTE: "There's no arguing against Efilism, it's just personal opinion. Like arguing what tastes better... ice-cream or potato chips?"
Say if you believe that the mona-lisa is beautiful, and I personally find it ugly, this conflicts/contradicts nothing because it claims nothing in terms about that object or reality outside of our own minds.
such qualities are OUTPUTs generated by body/mind from these INPUTs, the input is quite arbitrary/irrelevant, unlike the highly meaningful & distinct output generated of positive or negative experiences.
it doesn't matter what specific fun or hobby gets them off or pushes their buttons in order for it MATTER, those differences don't make it any less real OR all mere subjective opinion. the output positives & negatives is more or less same among individuals and that's what's relevant...
It can be TRUE that a certain food item is the tastiest to some personal individual, or gross to another, one's experience of what is tastiest for them doesn't contradict another's, they can both be true for them individually because it is the reality in their mind, Some people find bricks tasty or edible, just how their brain is wired.
while one person may find a certain food delicious, another may find it repulsive, without invalidating each other's experiences because they are true for them individually. both experiences are valid/correct.
However, actions that disregard another's negative experience invalidate their reality. if you find being boiled alive problematic and I do it anyway believing it's ok, I am invalidating your experience as either not real, relevant, doesn't matter, or my preferences are more important (carry more weight) than yours. Or simply believe it's ALL equal or arbitrary and I just prefer to exploit you so I do that.
Positive or negative experiences are largely consistent among people, making them relevant, regardless of the specific stimuli. Individual truths about taste or preference coexist without contradiction, reflecting each person's value-generated reality.
This cannot honestly be applied to one's mere opinion it's fine to boil kids alive, as you are invalidating the fact that it matters to those victims. You saying it doesn't matter or your gain of pleasure outweighs their loss of pain, is a claim about the reality of events going on in their mind, so there is room for conflict/contradiction. They can't both be right/wrong at the exact same time.
A strong non-intuition argument/claim & facts presented render value-nihilism implausible:
It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Therefore, BAD/PROBLEM isn't mere subjective opinion but something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are mere by-product reacting to an observation.
This is pretty much the only base-axiom needed to ground my own torture as mattering as the original actual value-currency at stake. That paired with the fact I sampled consciousness and know it matters to me whether or not I am tortured, the fact that I personally observe it as problematic makes it the true reality for my own mind...
...AND it's not mere opinion/proclamation / or idea humans creatively invented out of thin air... as if like everyone could be truly blind yet conceptualizing colovision, makes no sense. plus that's giving humanity way too much credit of imagination.
Can't really have thoughts about information that you don't have. The concept of bad/problem arguably wouldn't even exist if it never was so.
Yes, I agree very semantics. I am attempting to shed clarity on this topic. Looking at the word "BAD" purely in a descriptive sense (e.g., that which can be categorically applied to extreme suffering) it loses all meaning if it's not truly consequential (i.e., it matters whether one experiences bad or not). If it doesn't actually matter ("no problemo") then it can't be bad, only an illusion/delusion of it, yet it's an effective one evolution imposed on organisms as a learning/problem-solving mechanism. The value-realists like myself have every reason to believe evolution created the real thing, not some contrived pseudo-problem organisms feel compelled/obligated to solve.
One only requires the axiom of a Descriptive Bad to ground Ethics. Why? Because it can be argued that a descriptive statement of BAD/problem is prescriptive by it's very nature in the meaning the of word/language.(otherwise its psuedo-bad/fake langauge, redefines bad as aversion/mere preference against) Otherwise, it can't mean anything to be bad, torturously obnoxious, unwanted experiential events couldn't mean anything. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even state pain is a punishment signal/message to the animal: "Don't do that again!" If those aren't prescriptions imposed, then I don't know what is. The animal doesn't simply decide/prefer to avoid the event and finds it bad, it's told/finds it bad and so prefers to avoid the event/problem. If god or there were some logically or physically possible way it were to be invented how else would it exist?, or what you think evolution's reward & punishment mechanism accomplished? If it didn't synthesize problematic sensations to force organisms to solve?
Evolution prescribes Needs/wants, at the same time imposes a PAIN/PROBLEM of starvation/hunger which by it's very nature is a prescription for solution (i.e. sustenance/relief/comfort.)
By the very nature of "PROBLEM" it prescribes -> "SOLUTION" not merely a contrived or trivial-like on paper math problem, but the origin of why the word even exists: the problem of pain, a true whip/punishment mechanism, real currency to play with, real loss. Idk how you can describe something categorically as a PROBLEM in the true sense of the word if it doesn't come with it a necessary prescription for its solution. Because if there is no NEED for a solution, then it turns into no longer a problem again...
I don't see how it could be any other way because if there's no real game to be playing with value baked into it, then money would be worthless/not even exist, animals wouldn't bother evade standing in the fire, etc.
Saying It is Descriptively the case, that Evolution IMPOSED Prescriptive-ought statements... of 'PROBLEMATIC sensation/event' on organisms which functioned as a learning mechanism and improved survival.
Is the same as saying Evolution IMPOSED torture/BAD, as that's what torture/bad is... a prescribed need for solution to a problem which is some form of relief/comfort.
The prescription arises as a result of accepting step 1. (which nihilists reject/deny) problem solution. The latter does not follow/exist without the former. basic 2+2 = 4 logic. There's no point figuring out the answer to the math equation, if we don't agree first and foremost a problem exists. Nor how to solve a disease, if we don't first and foremost recognize a disease exists. And so, Any debate with nihilists on step 2: of determining what is the most likely solution / right answer becomes irrelevent and a waste of time. Arguing about whether x or y IS the right answer to fixing/preventing diabetes is pointless when they don't even agree the really disease exists. They don't believe an actual real BAD / Problem exists.
VG reduces it down to mere preferences, his reasonings that even if universally sentience prefers not suffebe tortured... Well, just because it is the case descriptively we prefer to avoid suffering doesn't mean we ought/should prevent suffering. He hasn't bridged the IS-OUGHT gap. But he got it backwards,
the claim/argument... ISN'T that because descriptively, sentience universally has a preference to avoid suffering, it is therefore bad,
the claim/argument... IS that it's descriptively bad/problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it,
Again you can't classify/label something as a problem if it's inconsequential whether it is solved or not. The word loses all meaning. If something NEEDs solving/fixing it means there's a problem, if there's a problem it means there's something NEED solving/fixing. Evolution manufactures these needy problems in organisms to manipulate and control them.
Merely what our preferences are IS NOT relevant, preference "frustration" arguably IS. (if preferences couldn't be frustrated "i.e., no value" than it wouldn't matter which way things turned out)
You can have a preference for some art style over another, if we were just programmed non-feeling robots that preferred to avoid standing in the fire, but there was no real kernel of value/bad, then it wouldn't matter.
Let's imagine something was Objectively PROBLEMATIC, an IS statement. What would a real problem look like? something in NEED of a solution. Again, why? because If it doesn't matter whether or not it exists or is Solved or not, it could never be a problem in the first place. So either this problem exists or it doesn't. (NOTE: it doesn't need to be an objective problem to be REAL, "i.e mind-independent")
Next, if ASI or sentient beings were to sample this "problem", would it not be the case they would logically deduce it's in need of a solution? And assign their preferences accordingly to solving it? Cause again otherwise then you just see it as "no-problemo" again.
"If Inmendham's argument is that sentient beings create value, and that the universe has no value without the presence of a sentient being generating it, would it not follow that the ought is inherently built into sensation?" yes but the way VG unfairly reframes it is that we subjectively place value on it, THAT it's entirely subjective, like you prefer salty or sweet, or certain ice cream flavor. emphasizing that it's entirely subjective opinion. Take a look at his unfair silly example: "we can't say pineapple on pizza is objectively tasty or not..." this shows a complete ineptitude in grasping the subject and misrepresenting the argument like crazy, no one is arguing whether Mona Lisa is objectively beautiful or some such thing.
What is being argued: the positive or negative mind-dependent event produced in response to the sensual or perceptual stimuli, the input (object) is irrelevant, only the output (experience) matters and what the value-engine (BRAIN) produced. What pushes your buttons so to speak, blue jelly beans or green jelly beans, could differ between 2 individuals but the shared experience is the same more or less. Whether you wired to find pineapple on pizza tasty or gross is irrelevant, some people find bricks edible.
Main issue is they talking past each other: what inmendham is arguing for was either not expressed as best it could be, and/or VG does not quite comprehend what is being argued... inmendham claims/argues evolution created the real bad/PROBLEM and we respond in recognition of this fact/truth with preferences that follow accordingly, Logic cannot be escaped, once you know 2+2 = 4, you can't will or believe it to be 79. If you know the right answer "torture be Bad M'kay?" obviously you won't act or behave otherwise and say you love it. What could it mean to have a preference against experiencing torture... does such a statement even make any sense? All that is required is a real BAD to exist... and then the preference to avoid it logically follows, an inescapable truth. Unless he thinks I also choose or prefer to believe 2+2 = 4 ?
Essentially VG keeps counter-arguing that: "yes we want to avoid torture, but that's just your preference... just cause universally sentience has a preference against torture (a Descriptive / IS statement) doesn't logically follow some Normative/Prescriptive claim/statement. That just because something IS the case it doesn't follow that we OUGHT / should do X, like help others, prevent suffering, etc. That's a non-sequitur he says. Ultimately it's just a preference." sure but...
His argument only applies/counters a strawman position in his head: Because of this I and other realists can account for / side-step it completely, we aren't attempting to derive an OUGHT from an IS. e.g strawman: "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore it's BAD." Or "we ALL have preference against torture, Therefore we OUGHT prevent it"
The actual argument is that it's Truly Bad/Problematic by the very nature of the word, Therefore first-hand observation follows universally a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around.
"If the only thing that can have meaning in the universe is the experience of a sentient being, ought we not maximize its value just by nature of its experience being the only thing that can matter?" yes the ought is a further logical extension of recognizing it to be a problem, which denotes/demands a solution, otherwise if it doesn't matter to solve it or not then you've turned it into a non-problem again. So it can only be categorically one or the other.
Issue of semantics, different terminology and definitions: as long as VG defines objective as "mind-independent" and sets the goal-post to the realist to find a mind-independent "wrong/bad" as if somehow we need some divine-command or absolute rule in the universe that declares it so... then there is no fruit to the discussion. suffering/bad takes place in the mind/experience, so of course it's unfair to ask one to present a mind-independent suffering/bad in the universe, it is begging the question. To be fair inmendham uses the term objective and could have done better job with defining/pushing his terms "e.g. objective as truth/real/fact" and not let VG impose in his own. However, I don't ascribe a requirement to demonstrate an Objective BAD to ground a BAD as real, valid, and true; it can be entirely based on Subjectivist grounds/axiomatic foundations.
Just because the BAD takes place within subjectivity doesn't make it any less real (non-physical/immaterial sure... but not unreal). VG and nihilists can't understand this. 2+2 = 4 is subjective as is all science ultimately as a root axiomatic-fact... as an observation requires an observer. This doesn't mean realism can't be proven/grounded, it can just like we can know 2+2=4 and the moon exists. If anti-realism is gonna deny subjective truths because it's subjective, then one can't know much of anything and reduces to solipsism. I am more certain I exist and the reality of "perceived" BAD I experience is actually a real BAD... THAN that the moon even exists or any other scientific empirical claim.
PROBLEM is something I/we/animals had Nothing to do with, we didn't invent it.
If Anti-realism nihilism was True and Real "PROBLEMS" didn't exist the word wouldn't exist. It is like being born never knowing or seeing or experiencing vision & color, it's impossible to contrive or imagine it. Some knowledge & information is only accessible through experience.
Even Richard Dawkins stated, "pain is a message to the animal Don't do that again!"
If the ought exists within subjectivity, as preferences, why would them being Subjective vs Objective determine whether or not their violation matters? If one experiences disgust looking at something AND another finds beauty... both are true realities for them, they don't conflict or contradict like empirical or fact claims, but instead both are correct and relevant, not one or the other, BECAUSE when someone says the mona Lisa is beautiful they are just saying it arises in them a sense of beauty, the thing/input is irrelevant whereas the output in mind is what is relevant and true for their reality.
Subjective =/= not true, I don't understand the dichotomy between objective vs subjective ethics, as if there isn't facts to glean about subjectivity.
There's also definition or semantic problems:
objective (mind-independent) vs subjective (mind-dependent)
Under such definition does it make sense to say Objectively evolution created feeling experiencing organisms having sense of taste, smell, sound, hunger, pain, to survive. So can we apply word objective to mind-dependent experiences or not?
And of course under such definition there is no objective mind-independent ethics as without minds there is no feeling subject of concern to even talk about in first place. So how silly...
Yet they take objective to mean True & Subjective made up or mere contrived opinion.
For me these are semantic word games that distract, I just care about what's fact/true. What many don't get is Even science, math is subjective invention, byproduct of subjective tool of language, doesn't mean we can't create an accurate model and picture of reality.
I believe the Is-Ought gap is a red-herring, sure it's true you can't contrive an Ought from just what IS, but with evolution the OUGHT statement is built-in, it's descriptively a prescriptive value statement imposed on me, I/we/animals literally have nothing to do with it, I'm just by-product an observer. This is key understanding.
There exists no objective or divine commandment "you OUGHT do X" written into the fabric of reality, and therefore if you don't that's Bad, No. That's nonsense/impossible logically.
Rather an Descriptive IS statement of X is a real bad/PROBLEM, denotes/demands a solution by it's very nature of the word, otherwise if it doesn't need solving then it becomes into a non-problem again, so either x categorically IS a PROBLEM or it's not.
The claim/argument... Is that it's Descriptively BAD/Problematic, therefore universally there's a deductively logically assigned preference to avoid it. Not the other way around. Our personal preference against torture forever doesn't make it therefore bad. The prescription is built in, forced onto us.
It's like "STOP!" & "GO" What do you say to a dog? "BAD dog!" This is saying it should or shouldn't do something. basically = "No!" "Stop!" That's a prescriptive statement/signal/conveyed message.
Or simply, alls required is Descriptively diagnose Torture as Problematic. Which implies Problem Solution Without necessity of solution there is no problem at all, likewise without problem solution means nothing.
​So you essentially boiled my position down to: "Evolution programmed preference to avoid torture." or "we evolved preference to avoid torture" Does that sound incoherent or what... as if I would make such a silly claim. Keep straw-manning.
Do you think animals have PREFERENCE by default to avoid being tortured burned alive and have sex, or logically preferences are born out of observing problematic negative / positive assigned accordingly through punishment & reward mechanisms aka prescriptions, think long and hard about this one...
This is why value or ethical nihilism is incoherent to me. IF torture be bad, how can it be NOT-bad/neutral to create BAD?
It either is truly BAD or it isn't. It's either real or it's an illusion/delusion and false perception.
Their position must reduce to there is no MEANINGFUL difference between Torture & Bliss. And evolution didn't create any problematic sensation or true punishment whatsoever. Instead, were somehow deluded to view being boiling alive as problematic sensation/BAD, and relief as good, we can't tell the difference or label which is which...
Vegan Gains or any anti-realist needs to substantiate these anti-realist nihilist claims & concede if he agrees with the statements below:
"The value-laden problematic BAD experience of being tortured boiled alive in a vat of acid indefinitely... isn't really bad, evolution didn't successfully impose a real negative punishment mechanism on animals, torture isn't something I/we/animals had nothing to do with and are just byproduct observing the imposition, NO! Instead our opinion has everything to do with it... what's problematic torture, one is merely subjectively interpreting/inventing/proclaiming it to be so! Evolution failed!"
"Animals run from fire cause they irrationally unreasonably subjectively interpret it to be bad/problematic sensation or experience, not cause DNA molecule made it so objectively for evolutionary reasons"
"It is all subjective preference like flavor of potato chips, problematic torturous experience isn't bad you just think it's bad or have preference against it."
"You don't logically recognize intrinsic problematic torturous experience then logically assign solution to problem which is preference to avoid that experience, No, you merely have subjective delusional preference against a nail in your eye and there is no logic to it"
"Good is Bad, and Bad is Good depending on opinion, no right or wrong, all subjective tho"
value anti-realism nihilism. INSANE! WORSE than a flat-earth theory!

Well sorry for late/no replies , im in a fixed schedule soo i cant look each and every msg and reply them personally (not rude but getting soo many dms about almost same or inter realted stuff ) so making it easier for you and for me aswell.
You all have many similar questions , so all common questions im answerining here , is someone wants to talk u can dm but im not sure when i will open it or even if i did , the chances are i wouldnt get enough time to open it and reply in a very nice and guideful way.
Most of you are asking how and where did i done my preprations .. I was completely relyed on mog test and jee mains pqys , i dont know how bad or good you are but doing it will help you alot , i havent prepared anything extra , im an integrated student so all i did was coaching modules and dpp, i was not the brightest in the coaching buy my chem teacher got my back and made me revise it thoroughly so im strong in chem (30 ques in almost 20-25 mins) ...
For Phy , i made a formula /cheat sheet type of thing and i look at it for 30 mins whenever i get time , or i just recall formula and try to check if im missing anything out and after giving test if i find something new i add inside it.
For maths , i was only doing modules , no yt channel , no maths unpluggged no NV sir nothing , just stick to that coaching modules and pqys , i found marks app very useful because it contained a lot jee mains pqys.
doing maths has been a really hard challenege for me , i was never good at it because of my coaching , but all i relayed on dpps , i used to check sols online as well (nothing too bad , because where would u go if u get stuck ?) but yeah only jee mains ques because the level was slightly higher soo,
I gave mog test till 9 and i was averaging around 310 , i have done lr for my ntse prep so i did nothing for this , all i did was giving tests in mog
for english i use read books soo i have develop a vast vocab thats why eng+lr was win win for me and it got me a rank push , now if u dont do this all dont worry about it , i got u covered . I will write about problems just be patient.
my order of attempt was Chem Lr phy eng maths (dont follow mine , but ur own because i cant tell u when i used to switch in between and generalised things never work irl). After mains all i did was pqys and theory revision , for theory i used my own class notes.
Now thins u might question again...
1 How can prep for june , just solve more and more question and realise ur mistake nothing new. 2. Can u achieve it , ofc u can i came from 91 to 319 , if i can , then u too can. 3. U dont have notes ? scroll a bit in google and yt , u will find short notes to revise stick with them. 4. Solve jee mains ques (atleast it is all what i did , u can have diff approach ) 5. Try attempting as many mocks as many u can , until u achieve ur target 6. Where to do maths? if u have BITSAT PREP BY ARIHANT , use it , it will help u , if u dont , i have a drive link i will attach below dont waste money , invest it. 7. Build ur own attempting strategy and dont google it how to get 300+ in 2 days , its just bs , u cant ! 8. If u have exam tomo , just relax today , go outside in fresh air and listen to some songs , dont panic at all , tum 2 saal padkh ke kuch nahi kar paye toh last 2 our m kn kar paoge , overthink karke , jo ara wo bhi mind se slip off ho jayehga. 9. before exam pack ur stuff , id card , admit card and ur pen and go to bed with the attitude of giving best. 10. Yes u can reach at ur center latest 30 mins after the reporting time but its better to be early than on time ig. 11. U have exams in 2-3 days later , give mocks , and dont give up on urself , u can do it ! and even if u couldnt make it , u would be satisfied with the prep atleast , u wont be regretting it i can swear on it 101%
ALL THE VERY BEST , (UPVOTE IT SO IT CAN REACH TO EVERYONE AND SHARE IT ATLEAST SO WHO EVER ASKED IN MY DMS CAN GET ANSWERS , IF U STILL HAVE ANYTHING COMMENT IT I WILL REPLY WHENEVER I GET TIME TO , OK ? )
GOOOD LUCK U ALL <333 KEEP CALM STAY COOL.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j9a5b1QuxN8G71m8An3eU8LqdKyFJbyE/view (Bitsat prep Guide by arihant )

In the dynamic world of event planning, maximizing return on investment (ROI) is a primary goal. Hybrid events, which combine in-person and virtual components, offer a unique opportunity to significantly enhance ROI. By leveraging advanced technologies such as 3D virtual platforms and live webcasting services in India, organizers can create engaging, cost-effective events that reach a wider audience and deliver measurable results. This approach not only expands the reach of events but also provides rich data insights that drive continuous improvement and higher returns.
Expanding Audience Reach
One of the most significant advantages of hybrid events is their ability to expand audience reach. By incorporating a virtual component, events can attract participants from across the globe, who might not have attended otherwise due to travel constraints. This expanded reach directly impacts ROI by increasing ticket sales, sponsorship opportunities, and brand exposure.
For instance, an international trade show held in Mumbai can leverage a 3D virtual platform to host virtual booths and live demonstrations. Attendees from different time zones can navigate the virtual space, interact with exhibitors, and participate in live sessions, all from the comfort of their homes. The 3D virtual platform provides an immersive experience that replicates the physical event, ensuring that remote attendees are fully engaged.
Cost Efficiency and Flexibility
Hybrid events offer significant cost efficiencies compared to traditional in-person events. The ability to host a portion of the event virtually reduces expenses related to venue rental, travel, accommodation, and on-site logistics. These savings can be redirected to enhance the virtual experience, improve content quality, and invest in advanced technologies.
For example, by utilizing live webcasting services in India, an organization can broadcast keynote speeches, panel discussions, and workshops to a global audience. This approach minimizes the need for physical infrastructure and on-site staff, reducing overall costs while maintaining high production values. The flexibility of live webcasting allows for real-time interaction, Q&A sessions, and instant feedback, enhancing the virtual attendee experience.
Enhanced Engagement and Interactivity
Engagement is a key factor in determining the success of an event. Hybrid events, supported by 3D virtual platforms and live webcasting services, offer numerous interactive features that enhance attendee engagement. These include live polls, chat functions, virtual networking lounges, and gamification elements.
Imagine a corporate conference where attendees, both in-person and virtual, can participate in live polls during sessions, ask questions in real-time, and network with peers in virtual breakout rooms. The 3D virtual platform creates an immersive environment where attendees can interact with content and each other, fostering a sense of community and involvement. Live webcasting services ensure that virtual participants have a seamless experience, with high-quality video and audio streaming.
Data-Driven Insights
One of the most powerful benefits of hybrid events is the ability to collect and analyze data. This data provides valuable insights into attendee behavior, preferences, and engagement levels, which can be used to optimize future events and drive higher ROI.
For instance, using live webcasting services in India, event organizers can track metrics such as viewer demographics, session attendance, and engagement rates. These insights help identify popular content, peak viewing times, and areas for improvement. The 3D virtual platform can provide detailed analytics on virtual booth visits, interaction rates, and attendee feedback, enabling organizers to refine their strategies and enhance the overall event experience.
Maximizing Sponsorship Value
Hybrid events offer enhanced opportunities for sponsors to engage with a broader audience and achieve higher visibility. Virtual components allow for innovative sponsorship options, such as branded virtual booths, sponsored sessions, and interactive digital content.
Sponsors can benefit from the detailed analytics provided by live webcasting services and the 3D virtual platform, gaining insights into attendee interactions and engagement. This data can be used to demonstrate the value of sponsorship opportunities and attract future partners, further increasing event ROI.
Conclusion
Launching your event ROI to new heights with hybrid events is not just a possibility; it's a strategic imperative. By harnessing the power of 3D virtual platforms and live webcasting services in India, organizers can create engaging, cost-effective events that reach a global audience and deliver measurable results. The combination of expanded reach, cost efficiency, enhanced engagement, data-driven insights, and maximized sponsorship value makes hybrid events a powerful tool for driving higher returns and achieving event success.

So I recently installed BEX after picking up the dlc and replaying the vanilla campaign (originally bought the game when it came out but then didn't play it for years).
I'm a year or so into a career in BEX, Simulation level difficulty. Was running a skull and a half mission for the pirates against the Capellans last night. I took a Shadowhawk H (AC5), a Dervish (LRM Boat), Phoenix Hawk (PPC) and a Night Hawk (Large Lasers). My Firestarter was being repaired at the time. Dropped onto a polar world to battle a Capellan lance.
Immediately on dropping I detected OPFOR to my right. No problem, thought I, there's a forested area just in front of me that I can use. Moved my Night Hawk into the forest for cover, and immediately detected elements of a second lance in front of me... Okay, this isn't what I'd anticipated! Moved up the rest of the lance to the forest, except for the Dervish, which I ran to the left to take a longer range position for its LRMs. Lo, and behold, but didn't the Dervish go and detect a 3rd OPFOR lance off to the left.
So now it is round 2, and I feel like the Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava:
Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them, Cannon in front of them Volleyed and thundered;
2 Wasps, 2 Locusts, a Spider, a Javelin, 2 Wolverines, 1 Griffin and a Phoenix Hawk came for me.... and then just as I thought it couldn't get any worse, twin PPC bolts came hurtling towards me from BVR... a Warhammer crested the hill! 11 mechs, all in my face at the same time.
So, what to do? I summoned my inner Monty Python knight, turned my mechs around and shouted "Run Away!!"
The enemy light mechs raced towards me, and I struggled to outrun them whilst mounting an "advance to the rear". My only saving grace was that they didn't have much in the way of indirect fire, but the polar biome meant that the enemy mediums could jump and shoot with impunity and the Warhammer didn't overheat.
Cutting a long story short, I managed to win the battle, somehow. The Dervish used up all 4 tons of LRM ammo (fortunately I kept 2 ML mounted aswell for just such circumstances!), lost a leg and an arm. The Phoenix Hawk lost a leg and the Shadowhawk lost both arms and a leg (its missiles and AC5 are both torso mounted though so it kept on fighting - "you've got no arms left", "it's just a flesh wound!!"). The Night Hawk got away scot free without significant damage. 2 of my pilots suffered long injuries.
The payout was good and the salvage excellent... I managed to finish off a Wolverine and pick up a Warhammer and Griffin part.
TL:DR - Battletech Extended is wild, and a lot of fun!

The Dream Assistance Hotline Safe Space (D.A.H.S.S) now has an elevator that can take you to different floors, there are currently three (excluding the ground floor) different floors:
Basement: Here is where you can fight any monsters you had in your nightmares, or any fear you might have. You will be granted two weapons (long ranged, and a medium-short ranges) of your choice, and if youd like, you can ask the staff for extra abilities. The battle won't happen immediately, as you need to talk to one of the staff to begin it, and you may also ask them to customize the battlefield to your liking! It could be anything from a gladiator arena to a simple floor of a building! You won't feel any pain from the attacks, and any time you want to stop, you can simply call out, and one of the staff will return you back to the main lounge of the basement. The runs are level-based by default (there are different levels you go through in the runs) but you can also enter an endless mode, it is also impossible for the monsters to stop you from leaving the run, so you don't have to worry! And if you've never had a monster in your nightmares, the staff can simply make it for you, or you can decide yourself.
Floor 1: this floor will generate an infinite space of your choosing (like an IKEA or an arcade), and you will be given a button that you can press to teleport you to the elevator, the food areas there will be from the space your in, but you can always ask the chef there for anything extra! And it can even be themed based off of the area. And always remember to never underestimate the skills of a D.A.H.S.S chef! This place also has it's own separate elevator that can take you to different floors limited to that space, its attached to the main elevator right behind it, so if your far away, simply teleport to the main elevator, then exit it, then go behind it, and it should be right there!
Floor 2: this place is a massive library that has books that should contain any memory you've ever had, sometimes it's nice to just kick back and remember the happy memories in your life. You can even enter the book and experience the memory as if you are actually there! Be careful not to change the memory though, as the book will be permanently changed too, but you can simply revert it by asking the librarian to remove any changes in that book. The books can come in comic format, or in word format, and you can even get it in cd format and play it on a computer or TV. Oh, and try not to make too much sound, or the librarian might get upset. 😅 This is a bit specific, but there is also an area In the library where you can play Dungeons and Dragons with whoever you'd like, the players could range from a fictional character to a family member! And you can choose to enter the game to experience it in real time too, then game has an auto save function, so you don't have to worry about it not continuing where you left off.
You can now also change the colour of the D.A.H phone, and even add stickers to make it look cooler!
I hope you guys enjoy this update, and please leave any feedback you might have in the comments!

Back in Grade 3 I found this book in my school library and picked it up to read, now unfortunately the school year ended before I could finish the book and I never found it again.
But when I found it online again I just had to pick it up and I don’t regret it.
Taking place in the near future hover cars have taken over the world utilising magnetic technology to sit roughly a foot of the ground. Now hover car racing is the premier sport of the world and that’s when our protagonist, 14 year old Jason Chaser enters the fray with his 12 year old borderline autistic Brother, The Bug (his actual name and he is described as borderline autistic).
The two are a power duo with Jason being the daredevil who can expertly fly the car and the Bug being a mathematical whizz making him perfect as the navigator.
As a racing nerd I was able to give it some leeway but also some criticisms.
For one, all safety regulations are thrown out the window with the only safety coming from the racing circuits end being ‘dead zones’ which catch the cars if they go too far of track. But aren’t present everywhere. The hover cars are fitted with reinforced cockpits and assumably a roll cage with an ejection seat on the side. However the tracks seems to make the sport more dangerous by adding things like ‘demag strips’ which remove power from the mag drives (the things that make the cars float and move, essentially the tyres of the new era) which make the cars crash out most of the time past the speed of sound. Then there are occasionally extra hazards such as a ‘meat grinder’ which is a tunnel that closes in on the driver until only the cockpit can fit. Now as a racing nerd, the governing body of most Motorsports, the FIA would NEVER allow this at 300 KM/H, let alone 800!
What I did love about the book was the use of racing terms, being Motorsport is underrepresented in fictional media I loved seeing terms like hairpin and apex being thrown into the fray and it was great! Another thing I loved was the characters, the good guys were well thought out and had some great character development. Now the bad guys are comically evil, and this isn’t a bad thing given the demographic, spoiler >!i.e a race fixing bookkeeper or a Frenchman named Fabian who uses dirty tactics Now being the book was made for younger kids it was way below my reading level and I saw all the twists coming, this isn’t a complaint per-se because I was reading the book to tie up a loose end more than anything but it was still an enjoyable read and I do recommend it to you if you want to turn off most of your brain and enjoy the vroom vroom of hover cars! It’s also a great book for younger kids if you ignore the swearing (shit being the worst word) as it gives some good life lessons!

Welcome to Uvape—the best vape shop in Kyiv and Ukraine! We pride ourselves on offering our customers the widest range of vape devices, e-liquids, and accessories to satisfy even the most discerning users.

Why Uvape is the Best Vape Shop

Uvape is rightfully considered a leader in the vaping market in Ukraine due to:

1. Huge Assortment: In our store, you will find everything you need for vaping. From the latest pod systems and mods to classic devices and starter kits—we have it all! We offer devices from world-renowned brands such as SMOK, Vaporesso, Voopoo, GeekVape, and many others.
2. E-Liquids for Every Taste: We understand how important flavor is when choosing an e-liquid. Uvape offers a wide variety of brands and flavor combinations, including popular lines from well-known manufacturers and unique signature blends. Whether you prefer classic tobacco, fresh fruits, sweet desserts, or exotic mixes, you will find something you love.
3. Accessories and Components: In our store, you will find a wide selection of accessories and components for your device. Coils, batteries, chargers, tanks, and much more—we provide a complete set for flawless vaping.
4. Qualified Staff: Our team consists of experienced and passionate vaping specialists ready to help you choose the right device, explain all the nuances of use, and offer the best solutions for your vaping pleasure.
5. Competitive Prices: We offer affordable prices on all our products, as well as regular promotions and discounts for our customers. With Uvape, you always get the best value for your money.
6. Convenient Location and Delivery: Our store is conveniently located in the center of Kyiv, and we are happy to welcome you in our cozy premises. Additionally, we offer fast and reliable delivery across Ukraine, so you can enjoy your new vape device without delay.

Our Services

• Consultations and Device Selection: Our consultants will help you choose the perfect device and e-liquids based on your preferences and experience.
• Technical Support and Repair: We provide repair and maintenance services for your vape devices to ensure they always work at their best.
• Training and Workshops: For beginners and experienced users, we conduct training sessions and workshops on vaping, where you can learn a lot of new and useful information.

Visit Uvape

We invite you to visit our store and see the quality and variety of our products for yourself. Uvape is a place where everyone can find something to their liking and enjoy vaping at the highest level. Whether you are a novice or an experienced vaper—we welcome every customer and are ready to help make your vaping experience perfect.
Uvape—the best vape shop in Kyiv and Ukraine. Discover the world of high-quality and comfortable vaping with us!

The study was done with nitrogen, but can be done with Ozone as well. Cite https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301601108_Effects_of_Ultralow_Oxygen_and_Vacuum_Treatments_on_Bed_Bug_Heteroptera_Cimicidae_Survival
Results All life stages of bed bugs were susceptible to ULO treatment.Higher efficacy of ULO treatments correlated with lower oxygenlevels, longer treatment times, and higher temperatures (Table 1).Under 0.1% O2, 8-h treatment caused 36.1% egg mortality andmortality increased dramatically to 85.7% when treatment was ex-tended to 12 h at 25C. There were no significant differences amongthe 12-h treatment at 25C and the 8 and 12-h treatments at 30C.Under 0.5% O2, egg mortality increased significantly with treatmenttime and temperature increases. The 12-h treatment at 25C onlycaused 50.2% mortality of eggs. However, the 18-h treatment at25C and 12-h treatment at 30C caused 94.3% and 98.4% eggmortalities, respectively. Also at 30C, an increase of treatment timefrom 6 to 8 h resulted in a dramatic increase of egg mortality from29.1 to 93.3% (Table 1).Under 1% O2, a temperature increase from 20 to 25C for 24-htreatments resulted in a dramatic increase of egg mortality from30.7 to 97.8%. There were also significant differences among treat-ments with different temperatures and treatment times under 2%O2. Over 98% mortalities were achieved in the 24-h treatment at30C and the 48-h treatment at 25C(Table 1). Under 3% O2, there were also significant differences among the three 48-h treatments atdifferent temperatures and the highest mortality of 96.0% occurredat 30C(Table 1).For bed bug nymphs and adults, ULO treatment with 0.1% O2at 30C achieved 73.3% mortality in 6 h and 100% mortality in 8 h(Table 2). As oxygen level increased to 0.5 and 1% at 30C, mortal-ity rate declined dramatically from 65.0–76.7% range to 2.5–5.0%range regardless of treatment time. The treatments of 24h at 25Cand 48 h at 20C under low oxygen levels of 2 and 3%, respectively,were not effective against bed bug nymphs or adults (Table 2). At35C, there was a significant increase in mortality from 64.0% inthe 3-h treatment under 0.1% O2to 100% mortality in the 4-htreatment under the same low oxygen level of 0.1%. Increases ofoxygen from 0.1 to 0.3% resulted in dramatic declines in mortalityof nymphs and adults in the 4-h ULO treatments. There was also adramatic increase in egg mortality from 45.8% in the 3-h treatmentto 99.7% in the 4-h treatment under 0.1% O2. The 4-h ULO treat-ments with 0.2 and 0.3% O2had complete control of bed bug eggs(Table 3).In vacuum treatments, egg mortality increased as temperatureincreased from 15 to 30C for both 24- and 48-h treatment times inthe 800 and 900 mbar vacuum treatments. However, 100%mortality of eggs was not achieved in the 800 and 900 mbar vac-uum treatments even in the longest treatments of 48 h at the highesttemperature of 30C(Table 4).In the 982 mbar vacuum treatments of all life stages of bedbugs, the 24-h treatment at 25C achieved complete control ofnymphs and had over 97% mortalities of adults and eggs (Table 5).At 30C, complete control was achieved in 8h for nymphs, in 10 hfor adults, and in 12 h for eggs. At 35C, the 4-h treatment of 982mbar vacuum resulted in 94% mortality for nymphs and adults and 75.2% mortality for eggs. The complete control of eggs wasachieved in 6- and 8-h treatments (Table 5).
TL;DR: - At 30C you need a 8H treatment at 25C you need a 12H treatment for about a 95% mortality rate. - But his was a controlled enviroment, meaning your home could leak and not sealed enough, also you can cracks where the Ozone doesn't reach the same rate as you would like?
What this means in practice is ofc the treament should be done for several days in 12 hour sessions and sealing the treatment area as much as you can. Don't even sleep in the next room, but farther away. On top of that, you have to prepare the room and use Diatomaceous earth to powder into cracks, outlets, all the corners of your room and around the bed you are sleepin on. Why? Cause DE takes away the oils and water from the bugs and kills them in 3 days. Meaning the method goes as follows: - Prepare to seal the room for the gas not to escape, plan not to sleep in the room or even house for 2 days because Ozone is toxic. - Prepare the room by powdering every cracks, corners and around bed in square form DE. - You kill most of the population with Ozone, do two 12 hours sessions with 8 hours between them, so about 3 days far from that area. - For the rest you have to be human lure, after the second 8 hour "air out" it's safe to sleep the area again, you sleep as you would and still use DE around the bed, even on the bed around you if you don't mind. The rest will die in 1-2 weeks when they try to get to you and they come across DE.