I will continue to update this post as reviews come in.
Rotten Tomatoes: Certified Fresh
Critics Consensus: A deceptively dark thriller that's also loaded with laughs, Hit Man is an outstanding showcase for leading man Glen Powell -- and one of the most purely entertaining films of Richard Linklater's career.

	Score	Number of Reviews	Average Rating
All Critics	96%	81	8.30/10
Top Critics	93%	27	8.00/10

Metacritic: 82 (21 Reviews)
Sample Reviews:
“Hit Man” is studded with delicious moments, but as amusing as the movie is it has a plot that sprawls forward in a rather ungainly fashion, and it goes on for too long. - Owen Gleiberman, Variety
Smart and steamy screwball fun. - Leslie Felperin, Hollywood Reporter
The comedy is a deliriously entertaining star vehicle for actor Glen Powell. - Ben Croll, TheWrap
“Hit Man,” Linklater’s latest film, falls into the fun-with-a-heart (and brain) category. It’s got a lot going for it. For one thing, there’s Linklater’s deft touch, particularly when juggling comedy and romance (with a little crime drama thrown in). 4/5 - Bill Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic
A smartly written, sublimely comedic, and sexy human-scale relationship story with a touch of just enough suspense and hints of criminality to prove that its title is not a complete misnomer. 4/5 - Cary Darling, Houston Chronicle
In the hands of a lesser director, Hit Man would surely have felt rather thin and disposable. But Linklater is a pro, and he manages to make the film’s fripperies feel borderline profound. 4/5 - Xan Brooks, Guardian
An intelligent comedy that contains plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and references Kant and Nietzsche, it is also a thriller that is darker than it first appears. - Jo-Ann Titmarsh, London Evening Standard
Hit Man trips along on great writing, Linklater’s witty, light-touch direction and a rich sense of place, but what makes it especially pleasurable is Powell and Arjona’s naturally steamy rapport. 4/5 - Robbie Collin, Daily Telegraph (UK)
... An effervescent comedy from Richard Linklater that simultaneously snubs its nose at the entire genre while easily nabbing the honour of most purely entertaining film to grace the Lido so far. 4/5 - Kevin Maher, Times (UK)
Another, crueller writer-director would have pivoted to scenes of bloody violence, but Linklater prefers to ponder the question of whether you can will yourself into becoming a different person. 4/5 - Nicholas Barber, BBC.com
A sorta-true story about an average guy who finds himself caught in a web of crime and deception, Hit Man is a cute and clever (sometimes overbearingly so) showcase for Powell’s magnetic charm. - Richard Lawson, Vanity Fair
The police scenes are just light enough to be funny, the screwball sequences are just dark enough to keep you on the edge of your seat, and Powell... is obviously elated to be handling such twisty material. - Shirley Li, The Atlantic
This genial comedy/noir is a genuine crowdpleaser – funny, sexy, clever and confident in building a low-key humour which hits the target over and over again. - Fionnuala Halligan, Screen International
It’s a genuinely riotous time at the cinema and concrete proof Powell is perhaps our brightest hope when it comes to keeping the notion of the movie star alive. - Hannah Strong, Little White Lies
Hit Man is hot and hilarious, a winning combination amplified by a story that gets knottier at every turn. - Nick Schager, The Daily Beast
Powell’s ability to power through some dull material on charm alone only reaffirms the credibility of his stardom, and the film’s general lack of ambition keeps things from going awry whenever a joke doesn’t land. Aim small, miss small. B- - David Ehrlich, indieWire
I’s just fun to watch good old-fashioned comedy in which love, danger, and happy endings are all part of a damn fine evening at the movies. - Alissa Wilkinson, Vox
With Richard Linklater’s Hitman, the charismatic Glen Powell has been offered a plum opportunity to shape his image into something more complicated and often poignant. 3/4 - Zach Lewis, Slant Magazine
[A] light-and-lively comedy. - Jordan Hoffman, The Messenger
Comfortably Linklater’s best movie since Boyhood, Hit Man stands alongside School of Rock for big laughs and good vibes – albeit with a darker streak that slowly kicks in. 4/5 - Philip De Semlyen, Time Out
Powell and Linklater would have done better to take Johnson’s story as a launching point and then spun off into their far more complicated version of his life without literally tethering the movie to a real person. - Alonso Duralde, The Film Verdict
Linklater has long had a gift with playful humor, and he nails the tone here without turning “Hit Man” into the slapstick it could have become. - Brian Tallerico, RogerEbert.com
A comedy/thriller that’s in equal parts charming, nerve-wracking, and ethically challenging. - Glenn Kenny, RogerEbert.com
Every interesting aspect of the true story and the imagined story are smoothed out. - Drew Gregory, Autostraddle
The smoldering, wily, wild-but-true Hit Man returns Linklater to his loquacious take on romance, with a man using his gift of gab to shrug off himself. - Charles Bramesco, Inside Hook
A witty, relaxed, and cheerfully fictionalized comedy-caper-romance; in the bargain there’s some light philosophical meditations on the impermanence of personality. 4/4 - Ty Burr, Ty Burr's Watch List
It’s as if Linklater is playing posthumous wingman for his subject, giving him the rom-com-slick Hollywood ending he never got in life. - Keith Uhlich, (All (Parentheses))
SYNOPSIS:
Oscar-nominated director Richard Linklater’s sunlit neo-noir stars Glen Powell as strait-laced professor Gary Johnson, who moonlights as a fake hit man for the New Orleans Police Department. Preternaturally gifted at inhabiting different guises and personalities to catch hapless people hoping to bump off their enemies, Gary descends into morally dubious territory when he finds himself attracted to one of those potential criminals, a beautiful young woman named Madison (Adria Arjona). As Madison falls for one of Gary’s hit man personas — the mysteriously sexy Ron — their steamy affair sets off a chain reaction of play acting, deception, and escalating stakes. Co-written by Linklater and Powell and inspired by an unbelievable true story, Hit Man is a cleverly existential comedy about identity.
CAST:

• Glen Powell as Gary Johnson
• Adria Arjona as Maddy Masters
• Austin Amelio as Jasper
• Retta as Claudette

DIRECTED BY: Richard Linklater
SCREENPLAY BY: Richard Linklater, Glen Powell
BASED ON THE TEXAS MONTHLY ARTICLE BY: Skip Hollandsworth
PRODUCED BY: Mike Blizzard, Richard Linklater, Glen Powell, Jason Bateman, Michael Costigan
EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: Stuart Ford, Zach Garrett, Miguel A. Palos Jr., Shivani Rawat, Julie Goldstein, Vicky Patel, Steve Barnett, Alan Powell, John Sloss, Scott Brown, Megan Creydt
DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY: Shane F. Kelly
PRODUCTION DESIGNER: Bruce Curtis
EDITED BY: Sandra Adair
COSTUME DESIGNER: Juliana Hoffpauir
MUSIC BY: Graham Reynolds
MUSIC SUPERVISORS: Randall Poster, Meghan Currier
CASTING BY: Vicky Boone
RUNTIME: 115 Minutes
RELEASE DATE: May 24, 2024 (Limited Theatrical in US; Wide Theatrical in Canada) / June 7 (Netflix)

I lost my grandpa last week in a car crash. The man lived an amazing life and was ready to go. He was 100 and he and his wife (my step grandma who I will call Jane.) decided to take a road trip to the beach. I say they decided to go on spring break because you have to try and find a little humor in life.
He was pronounced dead on the scene but unfortunately his wife was seriously injured, is now incapacitated and at the hospital which is in a different city from their retirement home. She has serious brain trauma and is recovering a little but it’s going to be very slow and who knows…She can barely speak, can’t walk, can’t eat.
I was named executor of the estate. Everything is in a trust in NC. Obviously this was never supposed to happen and my responsibilities were supposed to kick in when both had passed. I was named executor to serve as a buffer between my aunt and father. Jane has a tough time with my aunt. The feeling is mutual between them…
My aunt and father are there with her. They are telling me that I have some responsibilities now and my aunt is upset that I’m not doing more. She paid the cremation services for my grandpa and wants reimbursed. I’m like Jane isn’t dead yet…I can’t rob her to reimburse you. She’s calling me about death certificate details and wants to get into their home. There is talk about getting power of attorney over Jane because their bills need to be paid. I was thinking if this needs to happen I would turn the trust over to a fiduciary. They have a villa in a nice retirement home and Jane will likely need to move out of it and into the long term care wing but right now it’s day-by-day.
I’ve read that I need to figure out how to notify his pension fund. Hopefully the funeral home notified the Social Security administration. Going to ask the lawyer about power of attorney.
This is a mess!! Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. I’m going to call their estate attorney today.

Hi folks, I do a bit of writing on the side but nobody fancied picking this up and it's going out of date fast. So I thought I'd share with the sub instead.
Why Unai Emery is the Manager of the Season. And it's not only for his results on the pitch.
On the opening day of the 2023/24 Premier League season, Aston Villa were battered 5-1 away to Newcastle in a match that saw defensive talisman Tyrone Mings suffer a similar season-ending injury to that of his teammate Emi Buendia, who had damaged his knee ligaments in training a few days earlier. Villa’s shiny new centre-back, Pau Torres, looked lightweight and twitchy as a replacement for Mings, with his dreamy blue eyes and expansive, continental passing range only serving to confirm pre-existing fears that he wasn’t cut out for the #PaceOfThePremierLeague. Buendia’s replacement, Philippe Coutinho, gave the least convincing cameo performance since Donald Trump turned up in Home Alone 2.
Sir Alex Ferguson praised the Villa performance regardless, saying they’d played fantastic football and had simply lost bad goals. The natural assumption was that he’d indulged in one too many complimentary sherries, perhaps having gotten lost in the excitement of a new Premier League season after a summer of watching steroid-ridden horses running around and around in a circle. I scoffed. Hell, we all did.
But it turns out there is life in the big red-nosed dog yet - because nine months and 38 matches later, Pau Torres is well en-route to becoming an Aston Villa cult hero and Lil’ Phil Coutinho has been all but forgotten, having spent the season out on loan to… some club, somewhere, presumably in the Middle East.
Back on English soil, Aston Villa have qualified for the Champions League - and we all owe Alex Ferguson an apology. Game, as the kids might still say, do indeed recognise game.
And nobody plays the game like Unai Emery. Not in this past season, at least.
Who else could remain so stoic in the face of not two, but three first-team ACL injuries and a seemingly endless succession of unshakeable niggles to the likes of Jacob Ramsey, Alex Moreno and Youri Tielemans? Not Mauricio Pochettino, who cried it was not fair to judge his Chelsea team in the midst of an injury crisis; nor even Erik Ten Hag, who likened his attempts to improve an injury-stricken team to swimming with your hands behind your back - not easily done, by the looks of things, despite being blessed with a natural, ready-made swimming cap.
Excuses are not my mentality, said Emery back in March. I am usually not speaking about ‘if’. We just have to play. We have to accept each result and enjoy each moment. My objective is to send the same message to players and supporters — enjoy.
And us supporters certainly did enjoy it. We enjoyed reducing Manchester City to just two shots across ninety minutes, enjoyed doing the double over Arsenal without conceding a goal, enjoyed the curing of Ollie Watkins’ goalscoring yips and the long overdue presence of Ezri Konsa in the England squad, the rapid ascension of a team that Steven Gerrard had ambling towards the relegation zone, onwards and upwards not only into the Champions League, but also into our first European semi-final in a generation.
So what if it was only the Conference League? And if a 6-2 defeat on aggregate against Olympiakos was a little embarrassing? If the player who scored a hat-trick in the first leg had only recently returned from a stint in Qatar?
Emery’s squad were running on fumes by then. They’d just seen their goalkeeper receive two yellow cards and not get sent off - they were hallucinating, exhausted. In the words of their captain John McGinn, they were half men. And somehow that’s not even a reference to the ever-changing array of regens, schoolboys and teenagers who filled out the matchday squads towards the season’s end, stinking out the Aston Villa bench like they were passing around a joint at the bus stop.
Of the ten players to have played the most matches across elite European football this season, five of them wore claret and blue (and not a single one of them played for Burnley, although Jarrod Bowen did put in a shift for West Ham). Even the players who were fit were often unavailable through suspension: John McGinn got himself sent off for a shoulder barge against Spurs, only to be outdone a few matches later by the ever-competitive Douglas Luiz, who successfully tallied up ten progressively avoidable yellow cards in time to miss a crucial match against Arsenal at The Emirates.
Of course, supporters of every club will feel that they have attracted the worst luck, endured the most adversity. But I want to highlight Villa’s woes here because neither the likes of Sky Sports or even Emery himself can be relied upon to do so. Out of context, his achievements at Aston Villa are commendable. In context, they become almost astonishing.
It is the sensible decision that he will be named as the Premier League’s Manager of the Season. Arteta’s Arsenal have improved, put up a good fight; Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City have managed to turn the record-breaking into the mundane. And yes, Gary O’Neil is English. But nobody has upset the odds as comprehensively, with as much class, as much commitment as Emery has. He has developed a “no excuse” culture amongst the squad at Aston Villa and in return they have delivered a season for which no excuses are necessary.
I’d hope that he’d sit back now and enjoy the surely-inevitable plaudits. For those of us who’ve been watching closely though, we know that’s not quite his style.
If you enjoyed my writing there's a whole book of it available here! Winner Stays On: England with The FA Cup for a Compass
Cheers.

My first best friend, who I'll call Melissa, and I met in kindergarten and were both 5 at the time. We both looked and smiled at each other. That was the day we became friends and it was the most happiest day of my childhood. I sat next to her and we were hanging out with each other every day.
We would do so many things at school with each other. We would sit on the carpet to play with the items the teacher put out for the class each morning. We would always do fun activities in the gym. We would sit at lunch, laugh about funny things we told each other, and hang out at recess every day. My favorite moment was when we were on the swings to see who would go the highest and just look at each other and smile. We did go to other parts of the playground but the swings was our favorite.
When we weren't in a classroom together with our teachers due to them having a different assigned classroom, we would still hang out in lunch and in recess because they released everyone at a certain time by grade level. For example, if we were in 1st grade and students were in a different classroom, the 1st graders would all be released at the same time while the other students in different grades remained in the same classroom. So even if Melissa and I were in different classrooms, we would always meet up and have a great time.
In 3rd grade, I found this girl who I'll call Leah. Leah and I would do pretty fun things together since we were in the same classroom and were hanging out with each other, but I'd still go and hang out with Melissa sometimes. I introduced Melissa to Leah and we basically became a friend group, or at least I thought it was a friend group.
During this time I was constantly having to pick sides with some of our things we were making up as kids. First, it was who I was to sit with at lunch. (Sometimes I wasn't lucky enough to sit with either of them because of a rule where we had to sit in a boy-girl pattern to apparently make everyone quieter during lunch time.) Then it was with some group or clan we made up during recess, Melissa was in "unicorn squad" and Leah was in "girl squad" (I made up the name of girl squad.) I would try to bring them both together but Melissa's friends and Leah's friends didn't get along too well. I had no other best friends besides the both of them and it kinda broke my heart to see them not get along as well as I was with them. Then on a very traumatic day in fourth grade that I still regret for the rest of my life, Melissa and Leah both came up to me and said "You have to pick one best friend." I said I wanted them both to be my best friends but Leah kept pushing that I only pick one. Then we made up a stupid contest to see who would win (my idea) and I was a little tired of it and made Leah win. I have never seen such a sad look on Melissa's face when we were about to leave for home. I ran after her and apologized, I tried to comfort her and I think it worked since we stopped the argument.
Later on in the year of 4th grade, Melissa and Leah had some new friends they were hanging out with. I was fine with it at first, but seeing as their friends were experiencing many joyful moments with my best friends without me, I grew hatred towards their friends. I became jealous of what they were doing. I tried everything as a 9 year old girl could possibly do to keep the relationship going between me and my best friends. I still sat with both of them at lunch and joined them in recess. When they were busy hanging out with their friends, I was left alone, wandering around the playground, doing the things my best friends and I used to do but alone this time. It became depressing just thinking about memories of me and my friends playing together in the past and having fun. Now I had to have fun but alone as I watch my best friends have fun with theirs instead of me. I became even more depressed and angry seeing other random friendships because they were having fun and not me. I felt so alone, hurt, betrayed, so much emotion. This grew into more extreme hate towards the friends of my best friends.
In 5th grade, I did everything I could to have fun with them, but for some reason, something felt off. We hung out less. We didn't sit at lunch every day. Then I found out something shocking. Leah was hanging out with other girls who would give her lunch money, (I gave her lunch money for quite a long time now so we would get snacks with my money I gave her) and was making videos with these girls. I then hated the girls because apparently in my mind, they were controlling and possessing my friend. They stole her away from me. Leah and I still hung out and I considered her my friend because I didn't understand the concept of being used for money. Leah would always invite me to make videos but I wasn't comfortable. I realized how much of a fake friend she was but I still gave her a chance to change but never happened. I went to hang out with Melissa more after this but this felt a bit off too. She was hanging out with this one girl a lot. She seems pretty happy to be with her instead of me more. Melissa was into anime and I wasn't, so that drifted us apart but I didn't see it. I wasn't really into any of my best friend's interests because I was still depressed and full of rage against these girls. I grew to hate everyone and everything and I only wanted to be with Melissa.
It was near the end of the year when I went to go with Melissa in the playground where we always used to go, the swings. She constantly kept moving away, switching swings of just walking away from me. This hurt a lot coming from a close friend like her. I went to hang out with Leah because I still had no friends besides the two of them. Leah as well, left me behind and I was there alone again. All this just fueled my anger against everything. I hated other people, I hated activities, I hated everything, including myself. I thought this was weird since I didn't express my hate that badly towards these other girls, although I did want them to through horrible and horrendous things because in my mind, they were stealing my friends. They took away the people who made me happy. I was getting worse from my mental health because I wanted nothing but my happiness and my best friends back. I had a few thoughts of kidnapping my best friends so they could be with me forever. I would be happy and experience all the happy moments we would share together again. It was pointless anyway because I was just a 10 year old and couldn't do anything.
During these final months before everyone was all homeschooled for a year, I noticed whenever I tried to be with Melissa, she moved away from me again. I tried many times to catch up with her but she continued moving away. I thought absolutely nothing of it because of a funny joke by the teachers saying we hung out too much and we should be separated. I found it funny because at the time, our friendship was strong and I thought nothing would ever separate us from having fun. So I just thought about it as if she was playing around with that joke. I gave up catching up after Melissa because I was tired and I thought she was playing the joke on me. It turns out, I overheard something she said and she said I was too clingy. I didn't know what it meant and I thought she said a funny word and thought nothing of it. Later on she asked me for a break. I said that it was fine and I thought she meant a break for one day (I thought breaks were meant to be short at the time) and we left each other alone.
It came a few days later where she said she didn't want to be my friend anymore. I then went to hang out with Leah, who I didn't hang out with for a long while, said she also didn't want to be friends with me anymore. I was broken by their words but I just thought it was all a joke to me, because I thought it was dumb to unfriend someone for hanging out with them every day.
Fast forward to 6th grade where we were homeschooled for a year, I was full of hope that I was going to be friends with Melissa again after a long time. Then came 7th grade where I was 12 and I continued to sit with her at lunch again, but this time I felt nothing. There were no fun conversations like we usually had back in elementary. I just felt like I wasn't meant to be there. I still felt the same loneliness, rage, and sadness back like I was in 5th grade. That's when I finally realized I was no longer her friend, and I had so much hate in myself for taking a year to realize I had been blind to all of this. I never felt so much sadness like that in my life. The two friends I had left me, I was really depressed by this reason, and now I constantly question myself wondering what I did wrong. I still grovel over them both. It's been a few years now. Did I do something wrong?

I gave birth 7 weeks ago. Long story short.. I got mastitis and was dealing with it for about a month, i tried everything. If you named something, i tried it. Unfortunately it had turned into an abscess and I had to have it surgically removed. I spent 9 days in the hospital on IV antibiotics. I had a drainage tube put in and taken out after 4 days. My left breast is doing better and I am now on oral antibiotics. I am so scared of it happening again but I am so determined to continue to try to breast feed with my good boob.
After this situation, everyone is discouraging me and telling me to give up on breast feeding, while I understand the concern and what not, its not what I want. Is there anyone who has dealt with this and still continued to breastfeed? How determined were you? I also was exclusively pumping while dealing with all of this, but i still have hope that i can get my LO latched on again.

Hi guys, I’ll start by prefacing that I’m quite a skeptic person and never really had an interest in the paranormal at all. This experience changed my skepticism, but I’ve not researched if what I experienced is common, if it has a name or if there are any theories as to what it might have been. Would love to know your opinions.
I’m going to try and be as detailed as I can, and talk about some smaller surrounding events go down to the paragraph with “main encounter” for the main encounter if you don’t want to read everything.
This experience happened back in 2014. A few small things happened before the encounter. I had a toy- the London 2012 one eyed Olympic mascot that would play a song & dance when you pressed a button on its foot. On two occasions this toy turned on by itself, both times in the middle of the night, it would sing, dance & then stop abruptly. It would not complete the full dance cycle. I did a lot of research into this and convinced myself that it was caused by faulty batteries. Apparently that’s a thing, so it very well may have idk.
Next, I was having a shower home alone when the light turned off. The flip was psychically switched. I was the only one home. This could be just a bad switch, it’s not really enough for me to consider paranormal. But worth mentioning in the context.
Then things got a bit stranger, I woke up randomly in the middle of the night to see what seemed like a black tall shadow, but standing up, not like a shadow on the floor. It was facing me but wasn’t in my room it was just outside the doorway in the corridor. As quick as I saw it, it had moved out of view, I immediately ran after it, because I knew if I didn’t confirm it wasn’t a ghost it would freak me out for weeks. I was 13 or so back then. so I got up and ran into the corridor and just about saw a black blurr enter my parents room via the half opened door I run in and nothing was there. I don’t know if this one was a paranormal experience. The whole thing happened extremely fast and I had just woken up that very second. It it was strange. But I have sleep paralysis like twice a week, maybe this was a particularly strong case of it.
Main encounter;
So, the main experience. I was 16 now, with my sister 18, it’s a school morning and we’re in the living room. There’s a corridor that leads into the living room. We suddenly hear very loud running footsteps coming down the corridor, towards the room we are in. we can’t see into the corridor but we can see who pops out as they enter the living room, which is at the end of the corridor. We are weirded out by the sound, since we are the only ones home. We both look up to the entrance of the room in anticipation. The running gets closer and closer until finally in runs what I can only describe as an outline of a human, anthropomorphic shape, but blurry, the kind of blurry things are when in motion (which it was), it runs into the living room and right back out down the same corridor. It barely stops and we hear clear as day the thunderous footsteps that seem to go on for longer than the length of our corridor. The entity itself was short, the height of a child, maybe 7 or 8. we only saw it from the torso up as between us was a sofa. It was wearing a bright Orange plain tshirt and its face was a Caucasian skin tone colour. It seemed to have short black hair It didn’t have any facial features at all. Maybe because it was moving quite fast and it blurred but it definitely seemed to be faceless.
Me and my sister both heard and saw the exact same thing.
What could it be?

It was my cousin sister's wedding and we are Indians, so if you are Indian or know Indian friends/weddings, you know the drill - the daysss long wedding events, the heavy dresses and jewelry, and also, some serious family dramas.
My cousin and I are very close even if there is a huge age gap between us. Naturally, when her wedding came around I was very excited and I helped a lot with the planning and decoration and the food - literally everything. It was exactly as we have imagined her wedding to be like. Just perfect in every way possible. But again, it's a wedding. How is a wedding ever complete with a Drama Llama? So dear potato community, here is the tea.
The man that my cousin was marrying to, my current BIL, is an amazing man who has been with my cousin since their college days. They were friends in their college days and when they started working they joined the same company so they remained close to each other. Friendship turned into love and they decided to date and eventually get married. Both the families were informed and everyone was very happy with their decisions, except just one person. BIL's sister. She didn't have any personal problems with my cousin, her only issue was that her best friend liked my BIL, let's name this friend the 'idiot' (because she truly is an idiot and this is honestly the nicest word I can use for her).
When idiot found out that BIL loved someone else and is getting married, she went ballistic. She has been trying to get his attention for so many years and he didn't even turn towards her even for one day and he was being head over heels for my cousin. I understand her being upset, I have been a girl in love and in heartbreak too, but I wouldn't try to break someone's marriage because of my heartbreak.
Yes she tried to stop their marriage via BIL's sister. The two forged all types of absurd accusations on my cousin and tried to anonymously sneak in the accusations in means of messages from unknown numbers to my cousin's then future FIL and MIL, to emails and even letters delivered to their doorstep. My cousin was really stressed because she thought the FIL and MIL would think the accusations are true and would stop the wedding. I told her, "don't worry sisso, I am here." (add dramatic music here and imagine a cape on my back).
My cousin's father (my maternal uncle), me and my brother first went to the FIL and MIL to let them know that all of this was false and that my cousin is innocent. We asked them for some time and that we will find proof of who has been sending them those false news and will let them know of everything and then they are free to judge and make decisions from their side. We got the permission from them and decided to get to work immediately.
One thing I forgot to mention was that BIL used to live in his own house in a different state from where his parents lived after he got a job. Before this, my cousin and BIL used to live in one town and went to college together. Once they got their jobs, they both came to my city, BIL got his own house and my cousin came to live with me. His family came to live with him when he told them that he wanted to marry so they came help him with the wedding arrangements. What's unfortunate is that the sister also brought her best friend, the 'idiot', who was in love with my BIL since she was 15 and BIL was 17.
I mentioned BIL having his own separate house in a new town because it was important to mention. Both his sister and the idiot didn't know he installed security cameras in his house and that the camera was pretty well hidden so they couldn't have noticed either. We asked BIL if we can see the camera's recordings and we saw someone early in the morning at 4 am dropping a letter. Guess who it was... THE IDIOT!! We showed it to my cousin's FIL and MIL and they cross questioned the idiot about it and she was in tears and admitted to everything. She and BIL's sister apologized for everything. They were forgiven and it was a happily ever after... or so you thought...
Everything after that was pretty peaceful, all the arrangements were made and we are now at the wedding day. My cousin was really jumpy and on her toes at all times, she was panicking so bad about everything. My brother and I had to sit her down and talk her out of her panic. She however mentioned that she was scared that idiot might try to pull up some sick stunt to ruin her wedding day. I however told to her calm down cause I wouldn't let my precious angel's wedding get ruined. I have seen enough Charlotte's videos to know that we must always have a backup plan prepared in advance in situations like this. And so I did. I collected a lot of information and evidences and kept them in place in case they come in handy.
I had my suspicions that they would do something to mess up the wedding way before it even became a thought in my cousin's mind, so I did a little research about the two. Since we all belong from the same hometown, I got in contact with my friends who still lived in the town that my cousin and my BIL used to live in. I asked around about these two baboons and found out that BIL's sister had a boyfriend and has even slept with him. Premarital smex is a big no no here. As for the idiot, I found out that she was slowly getting BIL's sister into illegal substances and into becoming a call girl. Again, a big no no. And I think no parent in this world would want their child to do something that would end up in trouble for them and the child as well. I knew my cousin's FIL and MIL would be worried about their daughter and take actions immediately if I let them know of this. I would have told them this after the wedding was over anyway, but that would have been in private so no one else would know, but I guess the girls wanted something else.
Once the wedding ceremony started and the guests were all there, they were enjoying, everyone was having fun and giving their blessings to the new husband and wife to be. These two pain in the asses were going around and gossiping about my cousin to everyone. We noticed that, and we came up with a quick solution. I asked two of my male friends, who is very attractive to go and talk to the girls. However I told them to switch on their recorder and be with them no matter what. God bless my two friends, they did exactly what I told them without thinking twice. They came to me after an hour or so and told me what was going on.
The two girls were planning to ruin her wedding dress. When I tell you that shit was costly, IT WAS COSTLY. It was really heavy with all the heavy stone work that was done on the cream colored lehenga and if it was stained it would be ruined. We could not afford that in any cost. She was taking a glass of juice from the juice counters and tried sitting right behind the bride but I stepped in and told her to go sit behind her brother and that I would sit behind my cousin. She was trying so hard but me and my brother kept pushing her off and away from my cousin. Eventually she did manage to throw it but it accidentally landed on someone from the groom's side and she got scolded by her. While her grumpy face was funny to see, I still had enough because if that aunty wasn't there, it would have been my cousin. After the wedding was over and people were going to start taking the photos with the couple, I announced that me and my brother had some things to say. Initially we talked about the bride and the groom but then we shifted the attention to the groom's sister and her friend. We played the audios of the calls I had with her friends in the hometown as a surprise to the groom's sister. There were a lot of angry faces, some on the sister and some on me and my brother. I tried to explain, that had she and her friend not try to ruin my cousin sister's wedding dress, this wouldn't have been broadcasted to the entire wedding venue. I then called my two male friends and both of their faces was in gasps. Both of them pulled out their phones and I played the recordings on one of the phones, which explained how they were still spreading fake news about my cousin and also them planning to ruin my cousin's dress. We also got the video recording of them actively trying to throw the red colored drink on my cousin's dress.
Both of them got kicked out from there and weren't allowed to enter until the rest of the ceremony was over. Both of them stood outside, making attempts to convince anyone who would listen to them and let them in, but no one paid heed to them. Once everyone got home they were scolded badly and my BIL's sister kept screaming at me that I was so mean and rude to have their truths exposed to not just her family, but to every relative and friends who was there to witness the show. While my cousin was glad that I had her back and my brother is standing in support of me, my parents and some of our relatives think that it should have dealt within the family and shouldn't have been exposed to anyone outside of the immediate family members. AITA?
Note: I am so sorry if the post ended up being too long but I just wanted to give all the context that would be required to judge the entire situation and my actions as well. Also if something doesn't make sense just blame it on my sleepy head cause I wrote it in half sleep mode.

I’m a woman in college who just turned 20. I was in denial for a long time but my RA, who is a 27-year-old PhD student, may be obsessed with me.
To start off, he’s always been super kind towards everyone. When I was going through a personal crisis that caused me to faint, he ran to the local pharmacy and bought me a blood pressure monitor. He also brought me a jar of honey and lemon when I had a bad cold. He treats my other housemates with the same level of generosity. I’ve tried my best to be supportive in return by expressing curiosity and enthusiasm for his research and fun stories. I considered him a friend.
But about a month ago, he called me and asked to meet him at our house’s front porch. When I got outside, he insisted we cross the street. He carefully looked around and then asked if I would like to go out on a date with him. I was flabbergasted, especially since our age difference is so extreme. I also am not attracted to him. So I just replied that I’m flattered, but a romantic relationship wouldn’t be appropriate since we’re in completely different life stages. I thought this would be the end of him pursuing me, but I’ve been noticing odd, possibly obsessive behaviors ever since.
For context, there are two houses on our property. He lives in the front house and I live in the back house. I’ve noticed him watching me through the front house window, which would usually be followed by him entering the back house to chat. Even if I gave extremely obvious signs that I was super occupied or in a rush, he’d be eager to hear about my schedule and plans. It would always be extremely difficult to exit a conversation. He’s very overbearing.
Our house had an end-of-the-year party, so I invited a few friends. Throughout the night, he would not leave my group alone or chat with other people. An attendee I met the previous weekend was also there. We have a lot in common. We had been texting all week and showing signs of mutual romantic interest. But whenever we tried to have a moment alone together, this RA would barge in between us and kill the vibe with his own stories that weren’t relevant to our conversation.
The RA also spams me with a ton of Instagram reels that are super random. A few have some strange sexual undertones. He also regularly texts me, sometimes just apologizing for the most random things he said earlier that I didn’t even notice or remember. He also goes back to his messages he recently sent and unnecessarily edits them.
The creepiest thing he did was show me photos he took near my family’s house when he was in my home city for a conference. I never told him my street name or even what part of the city I was from. Maybe this was just a funny coincidence, but I don’t think it bodes well with my other information.
He has fortunately left for the semester. But that hasn’t stopped him from reaching out. Yesterday, he sent me 50 PHOTOS OF HIS VACATION with detailed descriptions. My phone was exploding for at least 15 minutes. Mind you, this was after I intentionally waited 4 days to open his last message and reply.
The good news is that I’m moving into another student house next year. But I feel like he’s becoming more persistent in spite of me showing super obvious signs that I’m not into him. How should I handle this? After how sweet he’s been, it feels wrong to outright say that I feel uncomfortable with him. Plus I’m worried about how he will react if I try to completely cut him out. But I really need to set boundaries to feel safe next semester. Thoughts?

Hi all. Every day I see people saying they struggle with bots and how they just aren’t fun. As a certified bot diver, I know how those missions can turn into absolute disasters in a second. However, there is a loadout that I think is the most flexible and efficient in almost all situations that I think will greatly help you and might even change your mind about playing bots. If not, at least I tried. This is what I take with myself when I just want to win.
A summary first, then some explanations.
Armour: heavy fortified (explosion resistance) Primary: Pummeler SMG Secondary: grenade pistol Grenade: stun
Stratagems: ballistic shield, AMR, rest to taste. I like Eagle airstrike and railcannon.
Armour: go heavy. While mobility is everything against the bugs, positioning is everything against bots. Speed isn’t essential, so pick protection. The Fortified perk gives you explosion resistance which is crucial because trust me, there will be times when it feels like the entire world is blowing up around you. There is also the white heavier medium suit whose name I forget, that one works well too if you find yourself too slow.
Primary: the Pummeler. If you don’t have it, the Defender works well too. They both reliably kill everything except the following: hulks, tanks, scout striders, factory striders. The reason we’re taking the Pummeler instead of the higher DPS Defender is the stagger effect it has. Its time to kill isn’t fantastic but you can lock down groups of enemies by alternating between them, kind of like how you used to with the pre-nerf Slugger. The reason for taking an SMG in the first place is the ballistic shield. More on that later.
Secondary: the grenade pistol. Two reasons: fabricators and close scout striders. We’re not bringing other explosives, so the GP is our factory killer besides any Eagles or orbitals you might take. Its real strength, however, is its ability to one-shot scout striders at ranges too close for the AMR. It’s not always consistent and you might have to hit them another time, but that’s not a problem because you’ll be reloading behind your shield, which the striders cannot penetrate. You can also use it against devastators but probably not much, since it does have limited ammo. Although it is fun arcing a grenade over a heavy dev shield and nailing them in the face.
Grenade: stun. We’re taking this for hulk hunting. I don’t know how long exactly the stun is, but it’s really good. Easily long enough to switch to the AMR, line up a shot, fire, line up another, and fire again. No more hulk. It can also shut down groups of smaller enemies but that’s mostly handled by our primary.
Now for the stratagems.
Ballistic shield: this is the centerpiece of the loadout. Underrated, underutilised, unbelievably good. This thing is bulletproof, literally. It will block everything ranged except explosions and fire. Small arms? No problem. Raider or heavy dev machine guns? Ping right off. Scout strider cannons, tank MGs, even the heavy frontal miniguns on factory striders? Not getting through this bad boy. The best thing about it is that it’s directional, meaning that you can choose which side you want to protect. Just carrying it covers your left, aiming covers your front, and pulling out your support weapon covers your back.
Now I did say it doesn’t work against explosives. This is a downside, but that’s why we’re bringing armour with the fortified perk. I suggest against trying to block rockets and cannons since they can break the shield, but this is unlikely to happen if you use it as intended. It’s also useless against flamethrowers, which is why we’re carrying stun grenades for disabling and hopefully eliminating those hulks that carry them.
What’s great about bringing the shield is that it makes you think about your positioning in a way fighting bugs never does. Against bugs you run and kite, never stopping because if you do, you’re dead. Against bots, this will not work. You will be killed, over and over again. You have to be slower, more methodical. Unlike bugs, bots are easy to outrun, but if they catch you out of cover, especially if they get a flank on you, you’re toast. With the shield, however, you can pick the weaker flank, take a deep breath, and attack them instead of them attacking you. What’s neat about this is that this tactic is viable even without the shield but doing it with it first builds up your skill and especially confidence; it’s a bit daunting at first.
I could ramble on and on about the ballistic shield but I think I’ve gone on long enough already. Let’s move on to the last part of the loadout, which is...
The anti-materiel rifle, or AMR: yes, materiEl. In my opinion, the true Swiss army knife of the automaton front. Some might protest and say the autocannon is it. I disagree, because while the AC is a great weapon, it lacks two things the AMR has: a free backpack slot needed for the shield, and good sights. If I’m not bringing the shield, I do take the AC sometimes. Despite its name, the AMR is perfectly good against personnel too. Since we’re bringing an SMG, we’ll be using the AMR for long-range chaff clear too. It’s also usable, if not ideal, for close range, although the massive recoil makes it challenging for that purpose. Still, if you get cornered with it you can forsake accuracy and just mag dump anything in front of you and chances are it’ll work because despite appearances, this thing has an insane fire rate. It’s not ammo efficient, but it’s better than dying. However, we’ll primarily be using the AMR for precise shots at weak points. It kills all devastators with one shot to the head, scout striders with one or two shots to where the legs attach, and hulks with two shots to the optic. It destroys the factory strider’s miniguns with four-ish shots, kills them outright with one and a half mags to the underside. It downs gunships with four to an engine. It’s useless against tanks unless you can get a shot at the backs of their turrets, but we still have two unused stratagem slots for those.
As for those, nothing else is “mandatory" for this build so pick what you like or what suits the mission. I like the basic Eagle strike because of its utility in killing everything. The railcannon is great for those moments when you see a hulk you want to absolutely, positively just delete in an instant. Precision strike works wonders against tanks, as do the 110mm rockets. 120mm is great for groups and factory striders. 380mm levels big bases and stuff like dropship depots and command bunkers. You get the idea.
So there you have it, IMO the most versatile bot loadout you can bring. As I said, this is my win button for when I’m not interested in experimenting and just want to get the job done. It’s effective and it’s fun. If you’re a bugdiver struggling against the socialist menace or just need something different to mix up your Scorcher & AC life, give it a try. I promise you won’t be disappointed. Any questions, feel free to ask. SES Queen of the Stars, over and out.

Charlie was sitting in her room, gazing out the window at the darkening sky. The beautiful colours of twilight had become a dull grey like how she felt within. She hadn’t seen her parents in what seemed days, although the clock on the wall seems to indicate only a few hours ago. They appeared to be forgetting that Charlie was alive and it hurt more than anything else.
As she descended into the kitchen, her steps were marked by creaking wood, which gave way under her feet that were bare. Emma, her mother, stood with her back towards the entrance cooking supper. Charlie paused outside the door hoping for acknowledgement from her mother but received none. In the lounge Mark sat engrossed in his book, unaware of Charlie’s presence.
“Mom? Dad?” called out Charlie with a tremor in her voice.
No answer came forth. Inside anger boiled and frustration welled up inside her as she marched to the dining table and knocked over a glass sending it crashing onto the floor without even getting attention from them.
“What is wrong with you? Why don’t you see me?” She screamed through house walls.
Yet there was no response at all. She was boiling with anger and frustration. She went to the dining table and hit it up against a glass that fell on the ground, breaking into pieces.
Her mother jumped, turning quickly. “Mark, did you hear that?” she called out, concern in her voice. “What was it?” Mark asked, looking up from his book. “I think the glass fell over on its own,” Emma replied, hurrying to the table. She knelt down, carefully picking up the shards. “Strange, there’s no breeze in here.” Charlie stood frozen, watching her mother clean up the mess she had made. Emma’s face was a mix of confusion and sadness, as if she was struggling with something deeper than a broken glass. As her mother swept up the last of the shards, Charlie felt a chill run down her spine. Something was terribly wrong. “What’s your problem? Don’t you see me?” She shouted loudly and her voice reverberated all over the house. However, there was no response from them. Her mother hummed a sad melody as her father proceeded to turn a page in his book without interruption. Charlie felt coldness run down her spine; something was terribly amiss.
On that night she hurried back into her room seeking answers. In desperation, she got out one of her old photograph albums intending to find some solace in happier times. While flipping through pages, she came across an image which made her heart skip beats. It had been a photo of both of them standing by a grave their faces full of grief deepness etched on their faces . Her name was engraved on the tombstone: Charlotte "Charlie" Evans
The truth hit her like a sledgehammer and she felt the rush of cold air. She had died months ago. The accident—it was all coming back to her now. The car crash on that rainy night, the blinding headlights, the screeching tires. She had been so sure she would make it home safely, but she never did.
Her parents weren’t neglecting her; they simply couldn’t see her. She was a ghost, trapped in a world where she no longer belonged. It was frightening and at the same time liberating when she realized what this meant for her life. Her face was soaked with tears as the depth of grief in her parents’ heart and own tragic end unfolded to her.
Charlie, determined to seek reconciliation, decided to pay her respects at the grave. A silence fell over the night as she trod through dark streets into the cemetery. The mists were dense; and there was a gentle wind in the trees. The parents’ flowers were already withered on her headstone that stood under an old oak tree.
Next to the grave, she kneeled down and put a hand on the cold rock. “I am sorry Mommy, Daddy.” She apologized silently. “Now I know better than I did before. I love you so much.”
The first rays of sunrise brought mild heat around Charlie’s body. At that moment, she looked up and saw them standing by cemetery entrance holding hands with their faces white but unyielding. They were here for her, they came back to cry again.
Emma wiped away tears from her eyes as she placed some new flowers on the grave which sparkled in the morning sunshine.“We miss you darling,”she murmured.“Every single day we miss you.”
Charlie felt comforted – he felt at ease with the world. They stared at each other as she backed away from the TV and watched them silently celebrate their memory. She knew that their love for her and conscience would continue to be as strong as the heart’s beating.
‘This is the finest way to end it’ thought Charlie as she gazed at her parents one final time before drifting away for good. She learned that she was never there alone – she wasn’t. And as she closed her journey towards the light, she again said ‘goodbye’, because she knew that she was a part of all of them, and that all of them are a part of her.

“We’re a meat family,” my dad would proudly tell strangers. He’d wait for the quizzical look, then launch into detail, starting with how many freezers we had, how long we could sustain ourselves on the contents. It was just his way of starting a conversation, which made sense when you considered that raising and home-killing animals for food was, for want of a better term, his life-long hobby. His prize possession was one of those industrial-sized vacuum sealers: you could put half a pig inside and wrap it in plastic so tightly that every wrinkle and skin fold waxed unreal with shiny detail.
If we hadn’t lived in a rural area, albeit semi-urbanised, I guess it would have been pretty weird. But the mostly farming-stock locals only found his extra enthusiasm a little bit odd.
When he wasn’t being a bit embarrassing talking about it, I never really paid much heed to his hobby. I had a child’s vaguely grateful awareness that though our family went through some lean financial times, our stomachs never suffered like some of the families around us. All the beef, pork, ham and bacon in those big old chest freezers passed down from his dad really could have fed us for years.
I should preface all this by saying that I wasn’t a particularly bright kid, though neither was I dumb. I didn’t fail badly at anything in school, I just never achieved beyond a pass. I didn’t know it yet back then, still quietly dreaming about being a ballet star or a dressage champion, but mediocrity was my destiny. And I think that’s why I got on so well with my Aunt Liz.
Liz was my dad’s live-in youngest sister. She was one of those women who get described as ‘bubbly’ — not really pretty, not really smart, not a lot going on besides just being… well, all Liz. But she was salt of the earth; kind, caring, and great with kids. She was the only person who would willingly mind my two older brothers, who fought like hellcats and caused more trouble than the whole last generation of my family combined. People would privately lament to my parents that it was a shame Liz didn’t have kids of her own, but dad would just shake his head and say Liz liked it that way – that all the fun of looking after kids is being able to give them back to their parents.
I guess she was like me; nice, but mediocre. Lovely, but somehow forgettable when she wasn’t doing something for you.
But when Liz left us, I couldn’t forget her.
In hindsight, it was pretty weird timing that we had a big fortieth birthday party for Liz right before she disappeared. She was radiant that night; she’d hired a local girl to do her hair and makeup, and it was honestly the first time I’d ever seen her look pretty. She’d even worn a push-up bra under a tight red dress, which flattered her very plump curves well enough that the neighbour’s farmhand was spotted disappearing into the woolshed with her for a snog. In my dawning awareness, that gave a plain girl hope: if Aunty Liz could get a guy at forty, maybe things would turn out okay for me.
Anyway, I couldn’t forget how her pink cheeks, her eyes, her whole self, glowed that night before Liz went to bed. She said it was the best birthday ever, and that she was very much looking forward to the next stage of her life.
Would I have done anything different, if I had known? If I had realised what, exactly, that next stage was?
The week after the party, Aunt Liz said she was going on a little holiday up north, to visit some old school friends. She packed her things – she didn’t honestly have that many – and drove her little orange mini out onto the main road. And with a wave of one fleshy hand, she was gone. Nobody really thought much of it when she didn’t call, because nobody rural had cellphones back then. And Liz was, as I said, somehow kinda forgettable when she wasn’t right in front of you.
When we hadn’t had contact for six weeks, Dad tracked down the land line numbers for their old school buddies. They were surprised to hear from him — Liz had never arrived, so they had just assumed she’d cancelled her visit. No-one had thought to check. I eavesdropped on the conversation, and it sounded for all the world like *they* had forgotten about Aunt Liz, too.
From there it became a missing person case. The local cops came and talked to all of us; the farmhand who’d been seen snogging her was briefly detained, then let go, dad got grilled at length, even my hellion brothers were questioned thoroughly to see if this was one of their wild and dangerous pranks gone wrong.
But everything was a dead end. Nobody knew where Liz was, or what had happened to her.
The remains of her old mini were found halfway across the country, burned out on a beach, on a derelict stretch of ragged, rocky coastline. The police assumed murder and combed the area for remains. But even the most expert divers couldn’t conquer the incredible undertow and fast-shifting seabed of that coastline to look for evidence, so none was forthcoming.
Eventually the cops collectively shrugged and said that there was really nothing more they could do unless more information suddenly came to light. The locals knew nothing, no witnesses had come forward, and the trail was cold. As far as anyone knew, poor aunt Liz had been murdered on some desolate beach, far away from her home.
It didn’t feel fair to me. She’d once mentioned wanting her remains buried on our farm, in the graveyard plot beside grandma and grandad.
So, in my grief, I went into her room to look for something of hers to bury beside them.
Like I said, Liz didn’t have many things. Her room was pretty spartan, and her wardrobe was mostly sensible farm stuff. There was one exception: she, like me, did like to read, and she had a pretty good collection of well-thumbed books. I think it’s the escapism – even the most mediocre girl can lose herself in the plot of some trashy romance novel, imagine there’s still hope of being swept off her feet by that handsome stableboy, his inexplicable yearning for chubby plain girls.
So I set myself the task of going through the books, to find the right one to bury in the graveyard plot.
Most of them were exactly what you’d expect, but some of them were racier than I was used to. I felt various parts of my body flushing and tingling, as I read breathless prose about calloused hands touching the softest flesh of the protagonist. Okay, if I’m honest with myself, I might have got a little *too* invested in my project at that point. But that was also why I persisted going through her entire collection, until I found the ragged paperback from 1970, entitled Tawny Sands. And inside that trashy cardboard romance cover, I discovered not the tale of Tawny Sands, but some carefully hand-cut, stitched-in pages. A handwritten story in my Aunt’s rounded penmanship: Memoirs of a Long Pig.
I read her story twice in a row, utterly gripped.
Aunt Liz was no Stephen King – heck, she wasn’t even the Goosebumps guy – but her story was gripping and compelling, and I couldn’t put it down. Even if I hadn’t known her, I think that would have been true.
The gist of it was that Liz, when she was sixteen, had discovered that our family had a very long history of eating what she described as ‘Long Pork’. It’s an antipodean term, anglicised from the Pacific Islands: human meat.
Like me, young Liz still had some hopes and dreams. In one of her many failed attempts to find a special talent, she’d taken up cooking as a hobby. Naturally, with our family’s overabundance of meat, she’d scoured the freezers in the shed for ingredients: the racks of ribs and stacks of pork chops, butcher-paper wrappings all neatly labelled with the first letter of the name of the animal they came from.
She found familiar meat from Rodney, one of the pigs that had been recently slaughtered, emblazoned with an ‘R’ in her father’s strong, blocky lettering. There were cutlets labelled ‘M’ for Mary, from one of the lambs she’d hand-reared, and ‘F’ for Ferdinand, the steer they’d killed the month before. But she couldn’t explain the many, many curious parcels of meat on one side of the huge freezer, all labelled ‘J’ – at least, not until she took it all out and assembled it as well as she could on the scoured concrete floor of the killing shed. A big, frozen jigsaw puzzle without the box, her best attempt to discover what kind of beast the pieces had come from.
The animal, she quickly realised, was a Long Pig. Her own Aunt Jenny, who had died the month before – just after her fortieth birthday.
Fortunately, or perhaps not, for Liz, her father entered the shed right at that moment and realised his daughter had discovered the family secret. He sat down calmly on the lid of the freezer, and explained to her that this was a long-running family tradition, dating back to at least before his grandfather had been born.
“There are always people in life, Liz,” he’d said, “who won’t really amount to much. They want to be useful, want to be more. They strive and they strive, trying job after job, hobby after hobby, trying to hit on something they’re really good at. Something that makes them special. Those people can waste their whole lives, chasing dreams that never come true. Eventually they die unfulfilled, knowing that all their time has been wasted. That what they leave behind will fade quickly.”
His voice was oddly gentle as he leaned down and patted one of the neatly wrapped cuts of Aunt Jenny, still sitting frozen on the shed floor.
“Your Aunt Jenny was one of those people. So was my Aunt Irene.” He paused to gaze at his daughter, his next words peppered with emphasis. “But you see, my sweet Liz, they did find a purpose in life. They did find a way to be special, and they left this world utterly certain of their gift.” He stood up, stretched his back. “Let me show you.”
Liz waited while my grandad meticulously stacked the meat back into the freezer, all but one J-marked parcel that looked for all the world like a thick venison steak. He took her back to the farmhouse, and reverently unwrapped the deep red, heavily marbled meat to let it thaw. Then he laid it in the family’s ancient, cast-iron pan, basting it with butter and rosemary until a heavenly scent filled the kitchen, and Aunt Liz couldn’t stop her mouth from watering.
“Just try it. Let her show you. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.”
Even though she knew it was her aunt, Liz couldn’t stop herself from taking that first bite. There was something transcendent about the smell, overriding her natural revulsion that this was human meat, not one of their farm animals. For the first time, she truly realised it: we’re just another kind of animal. And weren’t her memories of Mary the lamb almost as fond as her memories of Aunt Jenny?
Liz explained then, in her curly handwriting, the explosion of taste that had assaulted her when she tried the steak. It was tender, it was succulent, it was rich beyond imagining. The fats melted on her tongue, lingering somewhere between pork and beef, but oddly neither. The flavour of the meat defied identification; something familiar, yet not.
But one thing she couldn’t deny; it was the most delicious thing she had ever eaten. Tears dripped onto her plate, mingled with the juice, the grease — not grief, but a pure, real, giddy delight.
“You’re tasting your aunt’s love for this family,” my grandad explained. “Her entire life was carefully curated, to eventually make unforgettable moments for us, just like this. This was her way of being special. This was the greatest gift she could possibly bring to our world – and because she realised that, she died with not a single regret. She knew her life had purpose. She was perfectly, completely fulfilled.”
I felt those words. I felt them lodge in my own belly, settling uncomfortably deep. I knew Aunt Liz, probably better than anyone else in the family. I’d seen how fucking happy she’d been on her fortieth, how goddamn fulfilled she was, despite apparently being a *nobody* and achieving *nothing*. Somehow, in the space of a single day, she had gone from being a forgettable background character to becoming the *main character*, immortalising herself in our family’s history with her sacrifice. Quite literally becoming part of all of us, forever.
I went to the killing shed after I finished with the book. I looked inside the freezers.
But there were no vacuum-sealed packages labelled ‘L’, no matter how deep I dug into the frozen stacks of plastic-wrapped flesh. Panicked now, not sure if I wanted to connect all the dots or unconnect them, I tried to think back over the last few months, recall any meals that had been unusually good. A few Sundays ago, we’d had a stew that really hit the spot and left me craving more. And I realised that the family had a really good night that night; my brothers behaved themselves, my parents didn’t fight, and grandma and grandad had been there. Hadn’t they looked far more… expectant than they should have?
I strained my brain, trying to recall if I’d seen the homekill bag on the kitchen bench – if I’d registered what letter it was. I knew it wasn’t an L. I would have remembered if it was an L.
And then it hit me, the memory, the connection, sizzling as if branded with a hot iron.
It had been an ‘E’.
E for Elizabeth. Not for Edward the pig.
I snorted at my own stupidity – of *course* Liz was short for Elizabeth – and as I comprehended my lack of smarts, I felt something give inside me.
I wasn’t clever, and nothing, nothing would ever make me smart. I had no big talents. I wasn’t beautiful, or even cute – and even if I had a million plastic surgeries, it still wouldn’t fulfill me. It wouldn’t be real.
I was a Liz.
I was a Jenny.
I was whoever the first aunt had been, the aunt who had dedicated her life to making her flesh as delicious as possible, who had worked every damn minute to be the best Long Pig she could ever be.
I wondered how many magical family evenings had been spent eating Aunt Jenny. How many glorious, satisfying, memorable dishes had been made out of her.
And… I wanted that. I wanted to finally know I had a *purpose* in life. One so simple, and so easy to achieve.
I wanted what Aunt Liz had.
***
It's my fortieth birthday today and I’m so fucking excited. For the last twenty-four years, I’ve dedicated myself to this moment; I’ve eaten exactly what I needed to, I’ve exercised just enough, but not too much, to maintain that perfect balance of marbling vs tenderness. I’ve relaxed and meditated to keep all those amazing flavours inside of me. I’ve researched all the greatest meats in the world, from prime Angus beef to A5 Wagyu. I really think I may have outdone myself.
I’m having my hair and makeup done at the local salon this afternoon, and I’m going to look so pretty; all prize piggy on show at the fair. I’m even going to have a big red ribbon in my hair, in memory of Aunt Liz.
Maybe there’ll be a cute boy I can snog in the wool shed, maybe there won’t – I don’t really care; because the most important, most certain thing is that I’m going to be the most delicious Long Pig in the history of our entire family.
I’m going to make everyone so damn happy, and I’m just so glad I can share my story with you all, instead of hiding it in a grubby book like poor Aunt Liz.
My only real disappointment? That you won’t get to taste me.
Reader, I have loved, loved my life. My Long Pork will be out of this world: once tasted, never, ever forgotten.

Hello, I've started getting a random startup issue with my subaru some time ago. It does have LPG installed into it.
General details of the issue: every random day it starts up as in the video as I call it a cough. Sometimes the cough is longer and more scary sounding sometimes its a short one like this. Lets say this issue happens on Monday, then the next time might be on Thursday, maybe even after a weak. Or maybe sometimes the next day. It is unpredictable.
This has been happening for a year and a half I'd say. I've sent my car to all sorts of places to be diagnosed but I just probably got scammed into spending cash...
Things that were checked:
Battery checked and changed
Spark Plugs Changed
LPG systems checked (there was a tiny lpg leak into the system once fixed the issue stopped for a month or so but started again. Checked it again no leak so probably just the randomness of this issue)
There we some stuff that was also checked but I do not really remember the names of the things.
One test I did myself was to drive on gas for a month. This was to check if there was an issue with the LPG system. Basically I drove around on gas for a month no issues. So I scheduled a meeting with my LPG guys and after the month had passed and the meeting was set up. On the day of the meeting I've had the worst cough on the startup yet. This was while the LPG system was turned off.
Hot or cold conditions do not seem to make the problem better or worse. Maybe its like 10% more common to get a cough while in the cold.
Now my car stays in a underground garage but the issue still persists.
Thank you to anyone with any kind of input.
https://reddit.com/link/1cx3r0q/video/tswy3ymtxq1d1/player

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

Introduction

Hello fellow Helldivers. My name is Elliot, alias TeGoRE, a player with 155 hours on the game and plenty of experience gathered from 3rd party sources, especially Reddit and YouTube. I primarily play on difficulty 7, so this post will be biased specifically towards that difficulty.
As you all may know by this point, a lot of people are upset with the Automaton faction, its issues, balancing, bugs, etc. In this post I will be attempting to bring awareness to specific issues rather than asking for vague and general "fixes" the faction would need. I will also be referencing the other faction currently present in the game, the Terminids, as a point of comparison throughout the post.

"Fun factor" analysis; Loadout restrictions

I'll begin with what I believe will be the major point of discussion here. The automatons are just not fun. I understand this is a critical take, but please read before jumping straight to comments.
Let's compare the "fun" factor of Terminids to Automatons here. The Terminids allow you to run pretty much any loadout, while still letting you have impact on the game. You can run pure fodder clear loadouts with light penetration primaries and support tools and contribute to the mission that way, allowing your teammates to clear the heavies with ease. You can also run pure heavy clear with big bulky primaries and anti-tank tools, still contributing to the mission by destroying any charger and bile titan that comes into sight hence allowing your teammates to shoot the other fodder present without being spat on by a 400 ton oversized shrimp or being charged at by a walking rock. With both loadout cases you can also bring stratagems or change out your primaries and other tools (secondary and grenade specifically) that will allow you to have at least some impact on the heavies or lights, respectfully.
The Automatons don't allow for such loadout variety, and considering all the nerf barrages we've been receiving it's obvious that loadout choices are quite restrictive when it comes to fighting automatons. When was the last time you ran flamethrower against the Automatons? Any of the guard dogs? Any other sentry besides autocannon, EMS mortar or maybe the rocket sentry? Gas or airburst strikes? Light penetration or non-precision primaries? You get my point.
The faction requires a playstyle too specific for the casual player. You need to equip high precision weaponry (AMR, Counter sniper, Dominator, etc.) or medium penetration weaponry (Liberator penetrator, Counter sniper, Autocannon, etc) alongside way too many anti-tank tools. Sure, you can bring fodder clear, but the only realistic fodder is the regular troopers or the strider unit. Maybe berserkers. Only reliable (not saying it's the only viable one might I add) fodder clearer would be the grenade launcher, maybe the arc thrower. Furthermore, once on the actual battlefield, you can't necessarily play aggressive. Jump into a pile of bots and you'll be jumping back out limb-by-limb. You have to stay in cover, picking enemies one by one, slowly advancing forward. Then get all your progress denied by a bot drop :^)
We can then conclude that one of the contributing factors to why the Automatons aren't fun is the fact that it's too restricting and too sluggish. Let's look deeper, and analyse why your loadout and playstyle get so restricted;

Enemy analysis, its' contribution to the fun factor

The enemy types of the faction just do not let you vary your loadout enough.
Devastators specifically are the biggest issue. The regular devastator is well-thought out, a heavier bulkier unit with obvious weakspots and not too much firepower which could be compared to the hive guard in terms of mechanics. However, for the heavy devastator and rocket devastator, these are built to just bullshit you into dying. And good luck killing them if you have a light-pen weapon or generally don't have a longer-ranged or high-precision tool, as their primary body (excluding the abdomen) has enough HP to take three full counter sniper magazines (I do not know how a rocket devastator managed to do that, but it did) and just shrug it off. I don't think I need to talk about heavy devastators, they've been brought up enough... I will just briefly skim over it. They're too accurate. "Suppressive fire" does nothing to them. Their 70%-body-covering shield can eat anti-tank projectiles no problem. Sometimes a pack of devastators can be more devastating (badumtss) than a pack of hulks, depending on what devastators they are. If the "heavy" unit of a faction gets outperformed by common enemies, it's an obvious issue.
Another obnoxious enemy type is the berserker. As the name implies, they're a rage-crazed bot with only one directive: charge at you and kill you, no regard for its personal being. Which would be fine if they didn't have the health pool of a damn tank. One unit alone can eat an anti-tank projectile. And they typically spawns in packs of 4. Their weakspots don't even count as weakspots from what I can personally tell, shooting them in the head or the abdomen does about the same damage as just plain out shooting them. They're hard to kill at their core, and if they're backed up by support fire from the other enemy types behind them, you're pretty much helpless.
The rest of the enemy units are fine, in my opinion. They're well thought-out, with obvious counter-measure mechanics.
Hulks can be compared to Chargers. Heavy, tanky units at first, but mechanic rich enough to be an easy take-down once you figure out what you're doing. They have a giant heatsink which is where you have to shoot at regularly to take them out reliably. Not a weakspot might I add, just a point which you can shoot. Think Charger's butt. If you're a space cowboy shooting their tiny faceplate with anti-tank, or even medium penetration tools, can kill them as well. Lastly, just pumping them full of anti-tank projectiles (typically 2 rockets from any of the support weapons) will take them out just fine. There's other cool tricks you could pull off, such as throwing impact grenades between their feet, making them land behind the hulk, which would then take it out in 2 impact grenades if done right. Thermite grenades also deal a lot of damage to their legs, which can take them out too. Lastly, their arms can just be plain out shot off with the right tools. In conclusion, they are threatening at first, but once you use your brain to figure out its weakness, you're going to shrug them off.
Factory Striders are the Bile Titans of the Automatons. They are a bit less obvious but can still be handled decently well by a complete newbie. 2 miniguns on the front, shoot them off with medium penetration for easier kiting. Rocket the top cannon off for further success. Their big exposed abdomen is the obvious weakspot anyone can figure out. Shoot it enough and it'll die. For the more experienced, the front panel eye alongside the opening vents can also be points of advantage. Oh also can we talk about how they're a giant walking factory? Just bomb that bitch! 500kg, orbital precision strike, a regular airstrike, etc. It's a giant target just BEGGING you to throw stratagems at it.
Striders are simple as well. Big impenetrable front plate, completely exposed sides and back. A baby could do it!
Troopers are just fodder. Shoot 'em, they fall over.

Issue with dropships

If you played at least a few hours on the automaton front, you may know that the dropships can be shot down. However, when was the last time you saw that actually do anything?
The explosion deals too little damage, only sometimes killing the trooper units it's carrying. The body of the dropship itself seems to do no impact damage on the automatons, but loves to damage the shit out of you. The automatons also don't seem to care when they fall down 50 feet. Especially dropships with tanks. Shoot them down at the highest point of their drop, tank flies down at crazy velocity, lands with literally 0 damage to itself, then the dropships smacks on top of the tank doing fuck-all to it.
Oh and you can't forget the fact that the debris is solid cover FOR THE BOTS. You can't shoot through it. They can. They can also walk through it, you can't. ??????????

Issues with Automaton-specific side objectives

I will only bring up the ones that have actual issues behind them. If it isn't brought up here, then I personally believe it is fine.

• SEAF SAM Site

Barely does it's job. Shoots down one dropship per reinforcement, and as we learned earlier shooting the dropships down doesn't even do anything to begin with. Often times the rockets hit terrain as well. Completely pointless side-objective.

• Stratagem Jammer

Add some sort of indication to the spectating players when the person they're spectating is inside a jammer field, and therefore cannot reinforce them. Too many posts about too many people getting kicked for not reinforcing when they literally cannot.

• Mortar emplacement

WARNING YOU ARE IN RANGE OF ENEMY ARTILLERY WARNING YOU ARE IN RANGE OF ENEMY ARTILLERY WARNING YOU ARE IN RANGE OF ENEMY ARTILLERY WARNING YOU ARE IN RANGE OF ENEMY ARTILLERY oh my god SHUT UP!!!!

Bugs (not the Terminid kind)

The faction is riddled with way too many bugs, which just suck the fun out of it. Bots shooting through obviously solid cover, bots seeing you from across the map / through cover and then calling reinforcements, their seemingly 50/50 resistance to explosive damage, then other misc bugs not worth addressing.
This obviously drives people away. A terminid can't shoot me through a rock, I'd prefer fighting that terminid.

Conclusion of analysis; Solutions, final thoughts

The Automaton faction enemies & its mechanics at its core are fine, most enemies making complete sense. Most mechanics, while rich in function, are not very obvious. To play the faction well you need to invest some time into learning how it works. This deters the casual player back to the terminid front, which is a bit more brainless, requiring you just "hurr durr shoot bugs". Here's some solutions to consider:
Rework the devastator enemy type, specifically its specialists types:

• The rocket devastators shouldn't be able to spam their rockets as much as they do. I'd much prefer a larger barrage with a longer cooldown.
• Heavy devastators shouldn't be pin-point accurate if you're not moving / moving slowly. They do spread their shots out if you're moving, but it doesn't contribute all that much, you will still most likely take at least some hits. They're carrying a machine gun and shooting it from their hip with seemingly 0 precision. How is it that accurate?

The spawn rates of the specialist types could be reworked instead, allowing space for the default devastator instead rather than constantly spewing the specialist types. When was the last time you saw a dropship bring just normal devastators?
Please please please do something about berserkers. Lower their health pool. Maybe make the weakspots actually do something. Perhaps make them spawn less frequently if they're in the major enemy pool. Or, instead of that, make the packs smaller. They're a major ammo sink currently and by the time you're done killing them all the other enemies are already in your face.
Dropship crashes should actually do something. If I use up my support weapon's ammo to shoot down a dropship, I would want it to actually contribute to me destroying the bots, not just create a flashy explosion and extra 1-way cover for the bots.
SEAF SAM Site needs a rework of sorts. Make it always spawn on higher terrain, maybe buff its firerate (see actual SAM sites for reference), or keep the firerate as is if dropship crashes actually start doing something, instead improving its turn speed and lock-on speed. Primary issue is terrain though.
"oh yeah this spot is PERFECT for a SAM site!" said the seaf engineer after ordering it be built in a trench enclosed by cliffs from all 4 sides "what the hell is this" said the helldiver when stumbling upon it
Realistically speaking, the only people who perform well when fighting against Automatons are those who have tens of hours of experience on their belt alongside a team with similar skill level, using proper "meta" (god forbid) loadouts to properly counter the bot menace. The casual solo-queue player just crumbles.

Conclusion & Goodbyes

I may have missed some things, but I tried to grab everything problematic about the faction to the best of my ability. I will most likely not edit the post due to it already being gigantic. However any comments adding onto the post are obviously appreciated. :)
If you're here to find a tl;dr, don't bother. No way in hell I'm summarizing 11.5k+ worth of characters. Just read the analysis conclusion.
If you're here after reading everything above, thank you. I hope this was a fun read and brought attention to why you might not be having as much fun on automatons, maybe made you realize what needs to be done in order to counter the currently sluggish faction. I just hope I helped in some way.
If you're a developer, thank you for creating an amazing game. I've been in love with Helldivers 2 since the very start (upon finding it reaching sky-high popularity), enjoying every hour of gameplay. But just like with any game, it has its flaws, and I hope these are properly addressed. The community has been asking for changes, and I hope my post brought awareness to it.
Buh-bye!!!