Dd discount application
WeaveLore
2019.07.23 20:49 bgior WeaveLore
A sub dedicated to WeaveLore, an open-source web application to browse D&D 5e spells.
2021.09.25 18:37 badmark BudgetKeebs - Mechanical Keyboards Made Accessible to Everyone!
Keyboards of all budgets welcome! Budget does not always mean "cheap", it means working within a reasonable price range but still using quality items, or the best available within that range. We also love DIY boards; 3D printed, hand wired, whatever you have, we love the creativity of the community and the wonderful and amazing projects that are created every day. No GroupBuys, Indiegogo, or Kickstarter links! Try our Discord server: https://discord.budgetkeebs.com/ for quick help!
2014.09.23 01:30 TerkRockerfeller I'M NOT READY FOR FREDDY (THIS IS A MEME SUBREDDIT)
FNAF Circlejerk Official Discord server: https://discord.gg/5naf
2024.05.22 01:01 MerkadoBarkada VREIT Q1 div drops 23% q/q; Ayala Land sells P3.2-B block of AREIT; Figaro confirms "double-digit growth" plan; Alliance Global injects P2.6-B into Megaworld (Wednesday, May 22)
Happy Wednesday, Barkada --
The PSE lost 49 points to 6634 ▼0.7%
Shout-out to Jing for alerting me to the crypto pump, to Rat Race Running for knowing that when talking about FILRT it's all about the context, to Atot for the positive feedback on Raymund's "would you rather" question on DDMPFILRT, to ApCap for simply laughing at FILRT, to Bestpupever for remembering MVP's botched Skycable deal, to grinsken, princessybyang, VodkaMartini_007, and Nv21 for the happy bday wishes, and to arkitrader for the accurate Tuesday meme.▌In today's MB:
- VREIT Q1 div drops 23% q/q
- Ayala Land sells P3.2-B block of AREIT
- Figaro confirms "double-digit growth" plan
- Alliance Global injects P2.6-B into Megaworld
▌Daily meme Subscribe (it's free) Today's email
▌Main stories covered:
MB is written and distributed every trading day. The newsletter is 100% free and I never upsell you to some "iNnEr cIrClE" of paid-membership perks. Everyone gets the same! Join the barkada by signing up for the newsletter, or follow me on Twitter. You can also read my daily Morning Halo-halo content on Philstar.com in the Stock Commentary section.
- [DIVS] VistaREIT Q1 dividend drops 23% q/q... VistaREIT [VREIT 1.75 ▲0.6%; 0% avgVol] [link] declared a Q1/24 dividend of ₱0.04132, payable on June 27 to shareholders of record as of June 5. The dividend has an annualized yield of 9.4% based on the previous closing price, which is considerably smaller than VREIT’s pre-dividend yield of 12.3%. The total amount of the dividend is ₱310 million, which is 100% of the ₱310 million in distributable income that VREIT declared for the quarter. Relative to VREIT’s IPO price, the div increased VREIT’s total stock and dividend return to 18.55% (up from 16.19%). The VREIT Q1 dividend is up 5.4% y/y, but down 23.2% q/q.
- MB: I don’t know enough about VREIT to understand the quarter-on-quarter drop. This is the first dividend decrease in VREIT history, so we don’t have a past narrative of a Q4 to Q1 dip to gain comfort that this is just part of the regular business cycle for a malls-based REIT. Last year, VREIT’s dividend actually increased 1.5% between Q4/22 and Q1/23. But a 23% drop? *FILRT** be like: VREIT, I owe you an apology, I wasn’t familiar with your game. Does anyone have context to help me understand this one?*
- [UPDATE] Ayala Land sells ₱3.2-B worth of AREIT in block sale... Ayala Land [ALI 29.00 ▼2.4%; 121% avgVol] [link] disclosed that it sold 98 million common shares of AREIT [AREIT 33.00 ▼3.4%; 848% avgVol] in a private placement block sale at a price of ₱32.45/share. ALI said that the transaction was two-times oversubscribed at the clearing price, which was 5% under AREIT’s closing price from the previous day. The transaction raised ₱3.18 billion for ALI and increased AREIT’s public float to facilitate the planned property-for-share swap between ALI and AREIT.
- MB: While I didn’t know exactly when this second block sale would happen, I did know that it was going to happen and I speculated back in January that it would probably come as a surprise and at a discounted price to AREIT’s market price at the time. Here’s a link to that analysis if you’re interested. At the end of the day, the first sale was at a 7.2% discount whereas this one was only at 5.0%, and the public float is now prepped to handle the SEC’s eventual approval of the transaction (whenever that happens) without plunging AREIT’s shareholders into chaos and confusion like what happened to *SP New Energy** [SPNEC 1.05 ▼0.9%; 85% avgVol] when the SEC approved its share swap and caught Leandro Leviste’s management team flat-footed.*
- [NEWS] Figaro confirms ₱1-B FY24 capex and “double-digit growth” target... Figaro [FCG 0.75 ▲1.4%; 95% avgVol] [link] confirmed statements made by its Chairman, Justin Liu, in an interview with Manila Bulletin. In that interview, Mr. Liu said that FCG’s FY24 capex target is ₱1 billion, that they’re looking to open 70 to 80 new stores this year, and that he expects this expansion effort to push earnings to grow “double-digits” this year. FCG confirmed all those statements. FCG’s indicated that it would expand from 150 stores at the end of 2022 to 300 stores by the end of 2029.
- MB: According to its Q1/24 press release, FCG ended 2023 with 203 stores after adding 68 stores that year. If FCG were to put up another “70 to 80” stores this year, that would leave it with 273 to 283 total stores by the end of 2024, and give FCG plenty of time (5 years!) to complete the remaining 127 to 117 stores. Usually in the quick service restaurant world, periods of intense growth don’t correspond with periods of great profitability, so the “double digit” earnings growth target is what stands out to me the most. FCG net income was up 7.2% y/y last quarter, and that’s actually considerable given the previous year’s expansion and the current expansion, but that’s not double-digit growth. One thing that confuses me, though, is that in its Q1/23 quarterly report from a year earlier, FCG said that it ended 2022 with 150 stores. If it had 150 stores at the end of 2022 and then added 68 stores in 2023, shouldn’t it have 218 stores by now, not 203? I know, I know: 15 stores isn’t that big of a deal. Maybe it’s just a miscommunication between marketing and operations. Maybe there was a little bit of internal pressure to count 15 nearly-completed stores as completed stores in order to hit that IPO prospectus goal of 150 total stores by the end of 2022, and then they double-counted those 15 stores as part of the 2023 completes? I don’t know. I’m just going by the info they tell me. Any readers have any insight?
- [UPDATE] Alliance Global injects ₱2.6-B into Megaworld... Megaworld [MEG 1.89 ▼0.5%; 156% avgVol] [link] clarified the recent subscription of its parent company, Alliance Global [AGI 9.30 ▼2.8%; 185% avgVol], to 1.375 billion common shares at ₱1.90/share to say that it is part of a plan to increase MEG’s outstanding authorized capital stock by ₱5.5 billion (from ₱40.2 billion to ₱45.7 billion). MEG explained that it “intends to submit its application for increase in authorized capital stock... by around June 2024”, and will list the shares issued to AGI once the full payment of the subscription price is received. MEG said that the purpose of the sale and the larger transaction is for “supporting growth and future business expansions of [MEG] in line with [MEG’s] strategies and directions.”
- MB: Once approved, this will give MEG’s management team 4.125 billion common shares that it can sell to fund its ambitious capex for FY24 and beyond. If MEG sold the remainder at the same ₱1.90/share price, that would bring in an additional ₱7.8 billion. If I were a shareholder, I’d be less concerned by the details of the transaction as I would be about the meaningless word salad of the rationale behind it. I know many MEG shareholders who are frustrated with the stock’s laggard price performance. MEG just recently touched a 12-year low, and is trading at prices that the stock has not seen since early 2012. It’s down 4% year-to-date, down 8.7% over the past 12 months, down 34% over the past 3 years, and down 69% (not nice) from its all-time high that it set back in July 2019. What’s the plan? So far it seems all I hear is “townships townships townships” but that “strategy and direction” hasn’t been profitable for shareholders for almost 5 years now.
Subscribe here
Read today's full newsletter here
2024.05.22 00:42 MarkusRight PSA: Amazon allows 5 monthly payments interest free for most OLED's
 | submitted by MarkusRight to OLED_Gaming [link] [comments] |
2024.05.21 23:45 WhatCanIMakeToday ComputerShare Confirms DSPP Details (Both in DTC and Beneficially Owned)
 | ComputerShare has generously updated their FAQ on holding registered shares and Paul Conn has generously answered some questions on video about DRS and DSPP shares. [1] submitted by WhatCanIMakeToday to Superstonk [link] [comments] Chain Of CustodyA chain of custody [Wikipedia] represents the documentation of ownership and/or control as an item may pass through various parties. Applied here to registered shares, a chain of custody can detail who owns a share and through whom, if applicable. As is generally well known on this subreddit, “street name” shares all have a chain of custody from Cede & Co through DTC to broker to a “street name” shareholder as the ultimate beneficial owner. Based on ComputerShare’s answer outlining the chain of custody and ownership for Pure DRS and DSPP shares, we can identify 3 separate categories of ownership with 3 different chains of custody as shown and described here with color coding:Illustrating Chain Of Custody For DRS & DSPP Shares per ComputerShare 1. DRS or Pure DRS shares (Purple) have no “chain of custody” as “investors hold the shares in their own name” with “no intermediary”. This is as clean and clear as you can get for ownership of property where investors have both title and possession (see below for more details on these terms). 2. DSPP Shares @ ComputerShare (Light Purple) For DSPP shares, there can be 2 different chains of custody for shares which I’ll denote as “DSPP @ CS” or “DSPP @ DTC”. The “DSPP @ CS” shares comprise 80%-90% of Plan shares which are “held on the register in the main class”. The chain of custody for this “DSPP @ CS” group of shares is “CPU Nominee” to Investor where CPU is shorthand for ComputerShare as their ticker symbol is CPU [Wikipedia]. ComputerShare’s nominee is Dingo & Co. For this group of 80-90% of DSPP shares, ComputerShare’s ledger identifies ComputerShare’s nominee. As ComputerShare (or their nominee) are the only intermediary, title and possession of these shares is clean and clear. 3. DSPP Shares @ DTC (Light Pink) For DSPP shares held via ComputerShare’s broker at DTC (denoted as “DSPP @ DTC”), the chain of custody is Cede & Co to ComputerShare’s broker to ComputerShare to Investor. For this group of 10-20% of DSPP shares, ComputerShare’s ledger identifies Cede & Co (who holds shares for the DTC which is a subsidiary of the DTCC). DSPP Shares @ DTC ARE Beneficially Owned By InvestorsWe can build upon that Overview diagram with more detailed information from ComputerShare who directly answers questions about DSPP shares held at DTC for Operational Efficiency and which, if any, shares may be beneficially owned.For the DSPP @ DTC shares, “Computershare holds the title for the benefit of the underlying plan participants” where shares are held with ComputerShare’s broker who has an account at the “DTC [who] holds shares on the register through Cede & Co”. (Red) ComputerShare also says a “portion of shares will be beneficially owned by the investors” referring to “any portion of the Plan shares in a brokerage account through DTC”, which corresponds to the DSPP@DTC category. (No other chain of custody meets that description and there are only two possibilities for Plan shares.) Thus, the DSPP@DTC shares are beneficially owned by investors. (From the previously available FAQ text, we also know that “[t]hese particular shares are maintained by [ComputerShare’s] broker (for the benefit of Computershare, and in turn, for the benefit of plan participants” so the line from Broker to ComputerShare is also labeled FBO designating “for the benefit of” for beneficial ownership [Wikipedia]. Detailed Illustration Of Chain Of Custody for DRS & DSPP Shares per ComputerShare To be abundantly clear regarding the “DSPP shares held at the DTC for Operational Efficiency” (denoted DSPP@DTC), “On the ledger, the title for this specific portion of the shares falls within the Cede & Co holding”. TADR: ComputerShare Has Confirmed
Title & PossessionTitle identifies who has rights to ownership and possession of property.https://preview.redd.it/6ja7ax0piu1d1.png?width=1732&format=png&auto=webp&s=d951547572ffa97cebdc72e025596c96961a41cd “Title is distinct from possession)” where “possession and title may each be transferred independently of the other.” [Wikipedia: Title (property))] The concept of separating title from possession for property (including securities) may not be well known or familiar to everyone and, I suspect, was a huge fundamental source of confusion. Title basically identifies who owns property while possession is who holds property. Here are a couple (hopefully) relatable examples to illustrate this concept to help clear up confusion: Example 1: Your Wife’s Boyfriend Driving Your Car Imagine your wife and her boyfriend are speeding down Lover’s Lane when they’re pulled over by a cop. The cop will ask for license and registration because those two documents identify who is in possession of the car (i.e. your wife’s boyfriend as the driver) and who is the registered owner with title to the car (i.e., you), respectively. Applying this to stocks, we can ask the “license & registration” question of every party in possession of GameStop stock to determine who has title and/or possession. Apes have title and possession of pure DRS shares. But for DSPP@DTC shares, title for shares begin at Cede & Co passing down to ComputerShare; while apes only have possession of beneficial rights to shares. (See, e.g., “On the ledger, the title for this specific portion of the shares falls within the Cede & Co holding”, “Computershare holds the title for the benefit of the underlying plan participants”, and “that portion of shares will be beneficially owned by the investors”. [Updated FAQ]) Example 2: Your Home Imagine you are renting your home. As a renter, you probably tell people the place is “yours” because you have possession by renting even though your landlord is the owner with title to “your” home. This is an example where we use the term “your” to refer to having possession without title. At the same time, if someone were to ask your landlord if the place you rent is theirs, your landlord would also say yes. Me to Your Landlord: Is that your place where the ape lives?In this case, the same term “your” refers to having title without possession. Which means that two different parties, you and your landlord, can simultaneously claim ownership of your home depending solely on having either title or possession; without needing both. Applying this to the various Chains of Custody shown above for GameStop, we can see how both Cede & Co and ComputerShare have title to DSPP@DTC shares (see, e.g., “On the ledger, the title for this specific portion of the shares falls within the Cede & Co holding” and “Computershare holds the title for the benefit of the underlying plan participants”). And for DSPP@CS shares, we can see how both Dingo and apes hold shares (i.e., possession; see, e.g., “Dingo holds assets but does not own any of them” and “all plan holders are treated as registered holders of the company”) with ownership by apes (see, e.g., “As a nominee, Dingo & Co has no interest in and no rights to the property it holds in its name on behalf of Computershare” and “While Dingo & Co holds plan shares on the registers of Computershare’s issuer clients, the owners are treated as the registered owners of the plan shares”). [Updated FAQ] DSPP in TWO PARTSBased on the above, we can visualize the aggregate DSPP “Plan” shares as divided into two parts: (a) 80-90% held by ComputerShare through their nominee, Dingo, and (b) 10-20% held in DTC; with the corresponding chain of custody.DSPP Holdings Are Split In Two Portions BUT BUT BUT… SEC email!A previous post summarized an email response from the SEC as “PLAN SHARES ARE OUT OF DTC” [SuperStonk]. Unfortunately, that was a mis-reading of the SEC email with a misleading post title. We can illustrate the SEC response with color coding as shown below (and with comparison to ComputerShare's disclosure):Slightly different words, but similar overall description The SEC clearly states that “the overall count of issuer plan shares includes” (orange) two parts (a) investor shares held at the transfer agent (light purple) and (b) non-investor shares (light pink); thus we can divide up a box representing issuer plan shares (orange) into two parts labeled investor shares (light purple) and non-investor shares (light pink). The investor shares portion is described by the email with two statements: “The investor’s shares are not held at DTC” and “investor shares held at the transfer agent”. We can annotate the investor shares portion with both of those statements. The non-investor shares portion is described by a single statement: “The non-investor shares are held by the transfer agent’s broker at DTC in order to facilitate settlement for plan sales that occur” which can be similarly annotated for the non-investor shares portion (light pink). Visualizing statements in the SEC email allows comparing the SEC’s description and ComputerShare’s description, where we see striking similarities for the description of Plan shares.
Part 2, the shares held at DTC, is described by the SEC as “non-investor shares” (where the prefix non- literally means “not” so literally "not investor shares"). Part 2 of the Plan shares is quite clearly described by ComputerShare and the SEC as held at DTC by ComputerShare’s broker; corroborated by the Chain of Custody above with the ledger identifying Cede & Co as holding these shares for DTC who holds shares for ComputerShare’s broker where Plan Participants are beneficial owners of these shares (per ComputerShare, above). The main difference between the two descriptions is that ComputerShare says they typically have 10-20% of Plan shares in DTC, which yields a split between 80-20 or 90-10, whereas the SEC provides no information on the proportion of the two portions (thus illustrated simply as 50/50). Hopefully, this settles the long-running debate once and for all. One last thing… BE NICEApes are not exactly making friends with Wall St and the securities industry; and most are not the kind of friends we would want anyway. ComputerShare works as a transfer agent for issuers like GameStop so ComputerShare is pretty much the closest thing we have to a friend in industry. Paul Conn pretty clearly doesn’t like how some are accusing them of wrongdoing.Transfer Agents, like ComputerShare, are in a fairly heavily regulated industry. There’s been no indication ComputerShare is breaking any regulations. If there’s a failure, check for gaps in the regulations first. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. And, instead of blaming transfer agents, the SEC has already directed responsibility to the DTCC and NSCC in the SEC GameStop Report. [SuperStonk DD see section “So… who’s bag holding?”] Not the transfer agent. Paul Conn and ComputerShare have provided time and resources engaging with and answering questions from the community. Be nice and don’t fling brown semi-solids until you’re 110% sure it’s deserved. (We must be better than Wall St.) To Paul Conn & ComputerShare, thank you for having answered our community questions. We appreciate the clarity provided especially given the position you’re in. s/WhatCanIMakeToday/ [1] All quotes and citations within (including the post and images) are to ComputerShare’s updated FAQ on holding registered shares (which are corroborated by Paul Conn’s Q&A video); unless otherwise noted. |
2024.05.21 23:14 TorukMaktoM Stock Market Recap for Tuesday, May 21, 2024
 | submitted by TorukMaktoM to FluentInFinance [link] [comments] |
2024.05.21 23:14 TorukMaktoM Stock Market Recap for Tuesday, May 21, 2024
 | submitted by TorukMaktoM to smallstreetbets [link] [comments] |
2024.05.21 23:05 Bonzos-number-1-fan Putting the CAT# Back in the Bag: The Flaws With Person/Place/Object
Hi, I’m bonzos-number-1-fan You might know me from such theories as; "Theory of Fears; or, Zur Furchtlehre", "What R# Means: The ABCs of Fear" or, "Padlocks, How Do They Even Work?".
I’m back with another essay about this show. Today’s subject is a little different from previous ones. Rather than explaining what I think something in this show is, I’ll be explaining what I think it isn’t. What I’m going to be talking about is the very popular theory that CAT1/2/3 means the supernatural aspect is a Person/Place/Object.
Because I’m talking about other people’s ideas here I do want to start off by saying I understand why this theory is attractive and I don’t think anyone is stupid or anything for believing it. I just personally think there are angles from which it doesn’t work and that the sum of them makes it fairly certain to be untrue. I could be very wrong about that, and my other theories, or I could be very right. I don’t think either scenario matters much. This essay isn’t about being right but about talking about a big thing in the community. I just happen to not believe this one and people have signalled interest in hearing why.
So with all that out of the way I’m going to start by establishing the terminology being used. Then I’ll break down what this theory is positing and follow it up with the ways I think it does and doesn’t work. That’s basically it but with 16 episodes and supplemental material to cover it’s still not going to be terribly short.
Huge thanks to @brettanomycroft for proof reading/editing this madness.
Now we know what they look like, what is it we know about them? Well, not much at all. From the show itself we know there are CAT1s, CAT2s, CAT3s and CAT23s. From the Klaus excel sheet that was found as part of the ARG (and can be found here) we also know there are CAT12s and CAT13s. With that information we can say with some certainty that CAT1, CAT2, and CAT3 are non-mutually exclusive groupings. It's very likely not a linear scale of some description—i.e CAT23 isn't between CAT2 and CAT3—because CAT13 doesn't fit such a scale. Which means that where there are two numbers in a CAT# that incident likely fits both groups rather than being a new group. This also strongly implies that an incident could be CAT123 although we have yet to see that demonstrated.
We also know that CAT is short for "Category". In the Klaus sheet these numbers are located in the "Kategorie" column. "Kategorie" being German for "category". This unfortunately doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. CAT#s denote some form of grouping.
There is only one other fact we know about CAT#s and that's this:
The second is the “subjective method” in which the assessor chooses the CAT# based on the incident itself. The subjective method has a larger assumption built into it in that they know what CAT#s are. They don’t know what DPHW is and have shown no indication of knowing what CAT# is either. So I’d say it’s less likely that CAT#s are subjective rather than objective. However, for the purposes of this essay I will assume that both are as likely to be true as each other and will refer to them both. Different cases show different flaws when one of these is true over the other, so both will get discussed.
As I have mentioned this isn’t a theory with a single theorist or origin to point to. As such this theory isn’t a monolith and there is variation in how these categories are presented from theory to theory. Sometimes “Person” is literal and other times it includes any sentient thing, “places” aren’t always strictly physical locations, and the narrative framing of what “objects” are may shift. As such I will be taking the broadest interpretation of these categories as their definitions.
People will include animals and other sentient beings. Places will include metaphysical locations. Objects won’t need to be physical in nature. This is both the fairest I can be to all theories and also the strongest I can make this theory. The broader I can make these definitions, the more different ideas can be represented and the more wiggle room the CAT#s get.
What I’ll do next is run through all the incidents the show has mentioned and explain them as I see it. We’ll start with the ones that fit this theory well because they require little explanation. Then when that’s established we’ll talk about the places I think this theory falls down.
CAT1RB4824 Injury (Needles) -/- Intimidation: Needles is definitely a person, no question there.
CAT1RB2275 Mascot (Kids) -/- Murder: Bonzo walks, “talks”, and probably thinks. He’s a person.
CAT1B4728 Mascot (Kids) -/- Frenzy: Bonzo is still doing that stuff so is still a person.
CAT1RB4426 Transformation (Snake) -/-Horde: There was a person and they turned into snakes. Snakes count as people here too. Given the amount of snakes this is the most CAT1 CAT1.
CAT1RB-6451 Hunt (Aristocratic) -/- Compulsion: Lady M is the most person on this list.
CAT1RB1565 Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac: Definitely involves a person doing something supernatural.
CAT2RB2377 Disappearance (Undetermined) -/- Invitation: A spooky theatre is a location for sure.
CAT3C7494 Collection (Blood) -/- Musical: A magical violin is definitely an object.
CAT3RB3354 Dice (Bone) -/- Fate: Bone dice are inarguably objects.
CAT3RB4622 Gambling (Application) -/- Murder: It’s another stretch to call an app an object but, again, happy to give it to the theory.
This issue is further seen in the methodology of assigning CAT#s.Objectively it has the same problem all objective assignments do. Reanimation implies there is going to be a reanimated person so restating that doesn’t add much. If we look at the subjective method then this is chosen largely at random. There isn’t enough of an indication in this incident to clearly state which CAT this is. So it’s neither helped in the assessment of the incident and doesn’t provide anything for response because all choices are justifiable.
CAT1RB4426 Transformation (Snake) -/- Horde: Not misremembering here either. There is a problem with this one in that it’s demonstrated to be an infection. This makes the source of the affliction basically unknowable. The source could qualify it for other CATs but the larger issue here is that what CAT1 means here and what it means elsewhere are not that comparable. Needles, Bonzo, and Lady M are all sentient and independent. The afflicted we see in this case are normal people until they get very rapidly sick, summon a portal to the snake dimension in their throats, and die. Which leaves CAT1 translating to “something in the rough shape of a person” which is a really wide range of interpretations. Which is something I feel has little practical utility in either assessing or responding to these incidents.
CAT1RB1565 Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac: Still not misremembering. While you can say that Ink5oul or Madame E are the person in this instance there is a major conflict here with CAT3RBC1567 Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic. If Daria’s transformation was CAT3 because tattoos are objects then there is no reasonable justification that this isn’t at least CAT13. It’s the same person, doing the same thing, to a very similar result but in a different CAT. The headers are entirely different, and so this/that may be misfiled, but it highlights a problem with Daria’s incident. If the incident with the Tattoo header isn’t an object then tattoos are probably not objects under this scheme.
If this is objective then this is always a person, or on people, which makes a great deal of sense. However if that’s the case then the objective method for Daria’s case sort of falls apart because there wasn’t really a secondary object there. Additionally, because all incidents with that case’s header being objects is a huge stretch. So if this incident, or that incident, is misfiled it doesn’t really matter. In either case (or even if both of them are misfiled), it largely disproves that tattoos are objects, creating a larger issue with that theory as it affects more than just this case. Subjectively as far as we’re aware Sam filed all three of the Ink5oul incidents. So he chose an object in Daria’s case but then opted against it here despite there being no real reason to that we can see. You could say that now Ink5oul has been in it more, he thinks Ink5oul has some sort of supernatural power themselves which makes them a CAT1; that would still make this CAT13 as episode 11 was CAT23.
What we hear about this incident is entirely focused on the doll itself and questions about its nature. It’s a split between Dolls (Watching) and Dolls (Human Skin) with the former being chosen as the latter is only implied. Dolls themselves are objects which would make this CAT3, and if the doll is sentient a CAT1. However, this is placed in CAT2 indicating that it's actually caused by the location in some respect. In order for that to make sense you have to make 3 major assumptions. Assumption 1: despite no indication in the conversation about this incident suggesting anything outside of the doll being strange there was actually a “haunted house”. Assumption 2: despite there being sections far more descriptive of locations—i.e Architecture—Dolls is more suited to this incident. Assumption 3: despite this being Sam’s/the audience’s first exposure to this system it leaves out the real source of the incident when, narratively, this is an explanation of it. Those are some fairly major assumptions to make to justify a theory.
This also has issues with either method of assigning CAT#s. If CAT# is objective then every Dolls (Watching) is actually a location. Unlike with something like Reanimation (Partial) that doesn't make much sense as dolls themselves are objects. In the subjective method, Alice assigned this as a location but their discussion of it centred solely on an object and she didn't explain to Sam why she did it.
CAT2RC3338 Agglomeration (Miscellany) -/- Congregation: This might be my favourite example of issues I have with this theory. To explain it we’ll look at this from both the objective and subjective methods while taking into account outside knowledge of the show from an audience perspective.
Everyone I’ve seen posit this theory attributes CAT2 to Hilltop here.They do this solely because of TMA. There is nothing in this episode that makes Hilltop out to be anything special in any way. But because Hilltop is special in TMA the audience is primed to view this location as special. It may very well be but there is no reason to think that. In fact, I’d argue there's reason to think otherwise based on this episode, but that is a little off topic for this essay. However from an objective perspective it can’t take Hilltop into account because not every header of this sort will take place in Hilltop. They could only manifest at special locations but that seems like a stretch. If it is true, why does this unique combination of words not include a word that describes it as a location? Subjectively it could be a misfile. Celia would be the only person who knows what Hilltop is in TMA— assuming some of the theories on her are correct—but that doesn’t make Hilltop important in and of itself. It also means she ignored large parts of this incident when filing it just to focus on that element. As this case is the one Alice uses to teach Celia the system with, then this also relies on Alice knowing or not correcting Celia. In either scenario this case is full of people of definite supernatural quality, lacks a location of supernatural quality, but has 100s of objects of dubious supernatural quality. Something doesn’t make sense here if this theory is correct.
CAT2RBC3366 Architecture (Liminal) -/- Hunger: This one is interesting because it shows a flaw not in the theory per se but in the methodology as a whole if the theory is correct. If CAT# is what the theory says it is why is this just CAT2? It being CAT2 at all is redundant when its header describes a location but in this incident we see it’s populated by supernatural creatures. I call them Uncannybals—as should you—and they’re monsters living in the shadow realm. That seems like very important information to include. So it should be CAT12 as there are both people and a place. The OIAR methodology already has the problem that you can’t include multiple headers but CAT#s, if they worked like this, could be used to alleviate that issue. The way it’s implemented here just makes it virtually pointless to include at all.
The method problems are the same as above too. Now this case is the one most likely of the three to be misfiled. So you could say that Daria's case is misfiled and would actually be CAT1 if filed correctly. Tattoos aren’t objects, this case is a mistake. Then you could explain that Marked is CAT23 because corpses are objects (so 13 if he was alive). Objectively this header always being CAT3 still poses problems because we know there are Transformations that don’t require objects. Which brings us back to the problem of “why are the headers so bad at describing these things?”. If it’s subjective Sam decided that object instead of person made more sense here. Seemingly based on the fact that there is a tattoo. Later on he changed his mind about this but choosing it in the first place seems like a stretch. If he knew what these things meant in order to choose them, object seems like a very unobvious choice.
Objectively all compelling corpse tattoos are found in magical graveyards—or morgues, tombs, goth bars, and other corpse hangouts—and I think we can all agree that’s sort of wack. Subjectively Sam decided the graveyard was magic despite there being nothing to suggest that.
The big thing to know here is that Kluas’ cases lack headers entirely but that some Klaus cases have notes and it’s these notes attached. It’s only one’s with those notes I’m interested in for this because of how they relate to things we’ve heard. One case is CAT3RBC1567 with the note “tinte”. CAT3RBC1567 is Daria’s case and “tinte” is German for “ink”. So this is very likely that case. There are 4 other cases with that note and they’re two CAT1s, a CAT3, and a CAT13. So even if Daria’s case is misfiled not all of those are the correct CAT# for that assumption. There are also two CAT1s and a CAT2 marked “Herr B”, which is “Mr B” in English. These aren’t tied to a Bonzo case we’ve heard yet but one of them does take place in Bland Theme Park, Somerset. That’s not definitively Bonzo but it’s a good hint at it.
Additionally there are 6 CAT2 cases that have the note “Katzen LOL” or “Cats LOL” which you’d expect to be CAT1s if there are cats involved. In a similar vein there are one CAT1 and five CAT2s marked “Kreigsvolk” which is literally “War People” but more likely “Army” or “Soldiers”. Again, you’d expect more CAT1s if CAT1 is people.
I’m not saying any of the above is the backbone of my reasoning here but these are things that are showing up in the show and they do seem to be pointing the same direction as what I’m saying. Ignoring them entirely I think the theory doesn’t hold up but with them I think it’s very clear.
Just to reiterate for people that did/do believe this theory I don’t think anyone was stupid and/or wrong for thinking it. I hope if the above has convinced you that I’m right about it that you’re not dissuaded from making and sharing future theories. I’ve have 3 or 4 terrible CAT# theories and a few R# theories too. My current ideas on DPHW and R# might be awfully wrong in the long run and that’ll be okay.
That’s me anyway, hope this was at the very least an interesting read if it didn’t manage to be a convincing one. Bonzo! Bonzo!! Bonzo!!!
submitted by Bonzos-number-1-fan to themagnusprotocol [link] [comments]
I’m back with another essay about this show. Today’s subject is a little different from previous ones. Rather than explaining what I think something in this show is, I’ll be explaining what I think it isn’t. What I’m going to be talking about is the very popular theory that CAT1/2/3 means the supernatural aspect is a Person/Place/Object.
Because I’m talking about other people’s ideas here I do want to start off by saying I understand why this theory is attractive and I don’t think anyone is stupid or anything for believing it. I just personally think there are angles from which it doesn’t work and that the sum of them makes it fairly certain to be untrue. I could be very wrong about that, and my other theories, or I could be very right. I don’t think either scenario matters much. This essay isn’t about being right but about talking about a big thing in the community. I just happen to not believe this one and people have signalled interest in hearing why.
So with all that out of the way I’m going to start by establishing the terminology being used. Then I’ll break down what this theory is positing and follow it up with the ways I think it does and doesn’t work. That’s basically it but with 16 episodes and supplemental material to cover it’s still not going to be terribly short.
Huge thanks to @brettanomycroft for proof reading/editing this madness.
Spoilers for The Magnus Protocol up to and including episode 16.
What is a CAT#?
A CAT# is the first 4-5 characters of an OIAR's incident report header. While these are not often referenced in the main body of the show, each incident we hear is accompanied by one in the show's description and transcript. As an example this is the case number for the first incident of episode 1.CAT1RBC5257-12052022-09012024The first line is the case number. CAT1 is this incident's CAT#. The RBC (R#/Rank) and 5257 (DPHW) have been topics I've discussed in essays I linked at the start. The second line is the header and is formatted “Section (Subsection) -/- Crosslink [Format]”. CAT#s is all we're concerning ourselves with today but I will be using this terminology going forward.
Reanimation (Partial) -/- Regret [Email]
Now we know what they look like, what is it we know about them? Well, not much at all. From the show itself we know there are CAT1s, CAT2s, CAT3s and CAT23s. From the Klaus excel sheet that was found as part of the ARG (and can be found here) we also know there are CAT12s and CAT13s. With that information we can say with some certainty that CAT1, CAT2, and CAT3 are non-mutually exclusive groupings. It's very likely not a linear scale of some description—i.e CAT23 isn't between CAT2 and CAT3—because CAT13 doesn't fit such a scale. Which means that where there are two numbers in a CAT# that incident likely fits both groups rather than being a new group. This also strongly implies that an incident could be CAT123 although we have yet to see that demonstrated.
We also know that CAT is short for "Category". In the Klaus sheet these numbers are located in the "Kategorie" column. "Kategorie" being German for "category". This unfortunately doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. CAT#s denote some form of grouping.
There is only one other fact we know about CAT#s and that's this:
ALICEWhich is not a lot to go on at all but it does raise an important question. How is a CAT# assigned? There are two major assumptions you could make here. The first is the “objective method” and that it’s a factor of either the section, subject, DPHW or a combination thereof. This means that they are pre-assigned in the same way that DPHWs are. This method has an inherent trait in that it means every header manifests as the same sort of thing. While it’s not a problem to say that every Doll (Watching) is the same— that could just be the rules of the setting—it does make CAT# itself somewhat redundant. The terminology of the headers will often describe something inherent about the CAT#. We have a CAT3 case that’s Dice (Bone) -/- Fate but dice are objects so why would you need to restate that?
Right, so, after each entry there's four numbers. That’s the DPHW. So, “dolls comma watching” is… 1157. Then you cross reference with the table here, that would be a 2-C, and then you type that into the box here, along with date of incident if there is one and today’s date.
The second is the “subjective method” in which the assessor chooses the CAT# based on the incident itself. The subjective method has a larger assumption built into it in that they know what CAT#s are. They don’t know what DPHW is and have shown no indication of knowing what CAT# is either. So I’d say it’s less likely that CAT#s are subjective rather than objective. However, for the purposes of this essay I will assume that both are as likely to be true as each other and will refer to them both. Different cases show different flaws when one of these is true over the other, so both will get discussed.
What is Person/Place/Object?
Person/Place/Object is the theory that the three single digit CAT#s stand for Person, Place, and Object respectively. Combinations of these digits represent that an incident falls into each category. A CAT1 incident indicates that the supernatural element of an incident is a person in some respect, while a CAT23 would indicate both a place and an object.As I have mentioned this isn’t a theory with a single theorist or origin to point to. As such this theory isn’t a monolith and there is variation in how these categories are presented from theory to theory. Sometimes “Person” is literal and other times it includes any sentient thing, “places” aren’t always strictly physical locations, and the narrative framing of what “objects” are may shift. As such I will be taking the broadest interpretation of these categories as their definitions.
People will include animals and other sentient beings. Places will include metaphysical locations. Objects won’t need to be physical in nature. This is both the fairest I can be to all theories and also the strongest I can make this theory. The broader I can make these definitions, the more different ideas can be represented and the more wiggle room the CAT#s get.
What I’ll do next is run through all the incidents the show has mentioned and explain them as I see it. We’ll start with the ones that fit this theory well because they require little explanation. Then when that’s established we’ll talk about the places I think this theory falls down.
Which Incidents fit well?
CAT1:
CAT1RBC5257 Reanimation (Partial) -/- Regret: There is something like a zombie in this incident. That’s something like a person and so fits well.CAT1RB4824 Injury (Needles) -/- Intimidation: Needles is definitely a person, no question there.
CAT1RB2275 Mascot (Kids) -/- Murder: Bonzo walks, “talks”, and probably thinks. He’s a person.
CAT1B4728 Mascot (Kids) -/- Frenzy: Bonzo is still doing that stuff so is still a person.
CAT1RB4426 Transformation (Snake) -/-Horde: There was a person and they turned into snakes. Snakes count as people here too. Given the amount of snakes this is the most CAT1 CAT1.
CAT1RB-6451 Hunt (Aristocratic) -/- Compulsion: Lady M is the most person on this list.
CAT1RB1565 Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac: Definitely involves a person doing something supernatural.
CAT2:
CAT2C8175 Infection (Full Body) -/- Arboreal: This incident takes place in a time and space bending garden. Makes perfect sense for CAT2.CAT2RB2377 Disappearance (Undetermined) -/- Invitation: A spooky theatre is a location for sure.
CAT3:
CAT3RBC1567 Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic: In this instance the object in question is the tattoo. Which I think is really stretching the definition of “object” but I’m still going to give it to the theory.CAT3C7494 Collection (Blood) -/- Musical: A magical violin is definitely an object.
CAT3RB3354 Dice (Bone) -/- Fate: Bone dice are inarguably objects.
CAT3RB4622 Gambling (Application) -/- Murder: It’s another stretch to call an app an object but, again, happy to give it to the theory.
CAT23:
CAT23RAB2155 Transformation (Eyes) -/- Trespass: In this incident’s case the location is the Magnus Institute and the object is the box RedCanary stole. I think there are some problems with this one but there is enough to get through.Which Incidents Don't?
CAT1:
CAT1RBC5257 Reanimation (Partial) -/- Regret: You’re not misremembering, I did say this fit well. Because on the surface it really does make sense, but I think if you push just a little it makes very little sense. Why? Because any category you want to place this in is easily justified in the incident itself. There is a zombie-esque thing but also a Frankenstein-esque figure for CAT1. CAT 2 would be the location of the graveyard itself. It was chosen by the presumed creator of this zombie-like creature and is depicted similar to the one in Marked, a CAT23 incident. If this theory is correct and the Marked graveyard is supernatural I can’t see a reason to discount that possibility here. CAT3 fits too because the presumed creation method is that they were Frankenstein-ed which does require some sort of surgical apparatus. But whichever choice you make you’ve not really clarified the incident at all.This issue is further seen in the methodology of assigning CAT#s.Objectively it has the same problem all objective assignments do. Reanimation implies there is going to be a reanimated person so restating that doesn’t add much. If we look at the subjective method then this is chosen largely at random. There isn’t enough of an indication in this incident to clearly state which CAT this is. So it’s neither helped in the assessment of the incident and doesn’t provide anything for response because all choices are justifiable.
CAT1RB4426 Transformation (Snake) -/- Horde: Not misremembering here either. There is a problem with this one in that it’s demonstrated to be an infection. This makes the source of the affliction basically unknowable. The source could qualify it for other CATs but the larger issue here is that what CAT1 means here and what it means elsewhere are not that comparable. Needles, Bonzo, and Lady M are all sentient and independent. The afflicted we see in this case are normal people until they get very rapidly sick, summon a portal to the snake dimension in their throats, and die. Which leaves CAT1 translating to “something in the rough shape of a person” which is a really wide range of interpretations. Which is something I feel has little practical utility in either assessing or responding to these incidents.
CAT1RB1565 Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac: Still not misremembering. While you can say that Ink5oul or Madame E are the person in this instance there is a major conflict here with CAT3RBC1567 Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic. If Daria’s transformation was CAT3 because tattoos are objects then there is no reasonable justification that this isn’t at least CAT13. It’s the same person, doing the same thing, to a very similar result but in a different CAT. The headers are entirely different, and so this/that may be misfiled, but it highlights a problem with Daria’s incident. If the incident with the Tattoo header isn’t an object then tattoos are probably not objects under this scheme.
If this is objective then this is always a person, or on people, which makes a great deal of sense. However if that’s the case then the objective method for Daria’s case sort of falls apart because there wasn’t really a secondary object there. Additionally, because all incidents with that case’s header being objects is a huge stretch. So if this incident, or that incident, is misfiled it doesn’t really matter. In either case (or even if both of them are misfiled), it largely disproves that tattoos are objects, creating a larger issue with that theory as it affects more than just this case. Subjectively as far as we’re aware Sam filed all three of the Ink5oul incidents. So he chose an object in Daria’s case but then opted against it here despite there being no real reason to that we can see. You could say that now Ink5oul has been in it more, he thinks Ink5oul has some sort of supernatural power themselves which makes them a CAT1; that would still make this CAT13 as episode 11 was CAT23.
CAT2:
CAT2RC1157 Dolls (Watching): This is a big one in my opinion. It’s not only the first incident we’re told about, but it's both Sam’s and our first exposure to an explanation of the OIAR’s filing system. It’s also one I see ignored in most of the posts that posit the Person/Place/Object theory. That is understandable as we don’t hear the incident itself but we do hear enough of it to show that there is a flaw in the theory.What we hear about this incident is entirely focused on the doll itself and questions about its nature. It’s a split between Dolls (Watching) and Dolls (Human Skin) with the former being chosen as the latter is only implied. Dolls themselves are objects which would make this CAT3, and if the doll is sentient a CAT1. However, this is placed in CAT2 indicating that it's actually caused by the location in some respect. In order for that to make sense you have to make 3 major assumptions. Assumption 1: despite no indication in the conversation about this incident suggesting anything outside of the doll being strange there was actually a “haunted house”. Assumption 2: despite there being sections far more descriptive of locations—i.e Architecture—Dolls is more suited to this incident. Assumption 3: despite this being Sam’s/the audience’s first exposure to this system it leaves out the real source of the incident when, narratively, this is an explanation of it. Those are some fairly major assumptions to make to justify a theory.
This also has issues with either method of assigning CAT#s. If CAT# is objective then every Dolls (Watching) is actually a location. Unlike with something like Reanimation (Partial) that doesn't make much sense as dolls themselves are objects. In the subjective method, Alice assigned this as a location but their discussion of it centred solely on an object and she didn't explain to Sam why she did it.
CAT2RC3338 Agglomeration (Miscellany) -/- Congregation: This might be my favourite example of issues I have with this theory. To explain it we’ll look at this from both the objective and subjective methods while taking into account outside knowledge of the show from an audience perspective.
Everyone I’ve seen posit this theory attributes CAT2 to Hilltop here.They do this solely because of TMA. There is nothing in this episode that makes Hilltop out to be anything special in any way. But because Hilltop is special in TMA the audience is primed to view this location as special. It may very well be but there is no reason to think that. In fact, I’d argue there's reason to think otherwise based on this episode, but that is a little off topic for this essay. However from an objective perspective it can’t take Hilltop into account because not every header of this sort will take place in Hilltop. They could only manifest at special locations but that seems like a stretch. If it is true, why does this unique combination of words not include a word that describes it as a location? Subjectively it could be a misfile. Celia would be the only person who knows what Hilltop is in TMA— assuming some of the theories on her are correct—but that doesn’t make Hilltop important in and of itself. It also means she ignored large parts of this incident when filing it just to focus on that element. As this case is the one Alice uses to teach Celia the system with, then this also relies on Alice knowing or not correcting Celia. In either scenario this case is full of people of definite supernatural quality, lacks a location of supernatural quality, but has 100s of objects of dubious supernatural quality. Something doesn’t make sense here if this theory is correct.
CAT2RBC3366 Architecture (Liminal) -/- Hunger: This one is interesting because it shows a flaw not in the theory per se but in the methodology as a whole if the theory is correct. If CAT# is what the theory says it is why is this just CAT2? It being CAT2 at all is redundant when its header describes a location but in this incident we see it’s populated by supernatural creatures. I call them Uncannybals—as should you—and they’re monsters living in the shadow realm. That seems like very important information to include. So it should be CAT12 as there are both people and a place. The OIAR methodology already has the problem that you can’t include multiple headers but CAT#s, if they worked like this, could be used to alleviate that issue. The way it’s implemented here just makes it virtually pointless to include at all.
CAT3:
CAT3RBC1567 Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic: This was largely already covered. So simply put if Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic is an object because of the tattoo, and Tattoo (Corpse) -/- Compulsion is an object because of the tattoo, but Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac isn’t an object despite being virtually identical to this case then CAT3 doesn't mean object.The method problems are the same as above too. Now this case is the one most likely of the three to be misfiled. So you could say that Daria's case is misfiled and would actually be CAT1 if filed correctly. Tattoos aren’t objects, this case is a mistake. Then you could explain that Marked is CAT23 because corpses are objects (so 13 if he was alive). Objectively this header always being CAT3 still poses problems because we know there are Transformations that don’t require objects. Which brings us back to the problem of “why are the headers so bad at describing these things?”. If it’s subjective Sam decided that object instead of person made more sense here. Seemingly based on the fact that there is a tattoo. Later on he changed his mind about this but choosing it in the first place seems like a stretch. If he knew what these things meant in order to choose them, object seems like a very unobvious choice.
CAT23:
CAT23RC5246 Tattoo (Corpse) -/- Compulsion: This one is fairly clear to me. I’m going to be very generous and suggest that the corpse here is the object based on the above. The reason this one is a problem is that there wasn’t a location here. I’ve seen people say that it must be the graveyard but that’s confirmation bias IMO. It wasn’t a large feature of the episode, didn’t do anything coastal graveyards don’t do, and had no overt supernatural properties to it. I don’t personally think anyone would categorise this as CAT23 based on the incident alone but because CAT23 people will justify it to fit. That’s not inherently a problem because sometimes you have to make assumptions but given all of the above I don’t think that assumption is a reasonable one to make.Objectively all compelling corpse tattoos are found in magical graveyards—or morgues, tombs, goth bars, and other corpse hangouts—and I think we can all agree that’s sort of wack. Subjectively Sam decided the graveyard was magic despite there being nothing to suggest that.
Klaus’ CAT#s:
This is a bit of a special section. I briefly mention Klaus in the intro but I didn’t mention that some of the incidents we’ve heard have been found on the Klaus sheet. The canonicity of these aren’t 100% and I would say the show takes precedent so this is supplemental rather than definitive. I think I’ve more than shown that this theory doesn’t hold up. This is more of an academic exercise.The big thing to know here is that Kluas’ cases lack headers entirely but that some Klaus cases have notes and it’s these notes attached. It’s only one’s with those notes I’m interested in for this because of how they relate to things we’ve heard. One case is CAT3RBC1567 with the note “tinte”. CAT3RBC1567 is Daria’s case and “tinte” is German for “ink”. So this is very likely that case. There are 4 other cases with that note and they’re two CAT1s, a CAT3, and a CAT13. So even if Daria’s case is misfiled not all of those are the correct CAT# for that assumption. There are also two CAT1s and a CAT2 marked “Herr B”, which is “Mr B” in English. These aren’t tied to a Bonzo case we’ve heard yet but one of them does take place in Bland Theme Park, Somerset. That’s not definitively Bonzo but it’s a good hint at it.
Additionally there are 6 CAT2 cases that have the note “Katzen LOL” or “Cats LOL” which you’d expect to be CAT1s if there are cats involved. In a similar vein there are one CAT1 and five CAT2s marked “Kreigsvolk” which is literally “War People” but more likely “Army” or “Soldiers”. Again, you’d expect more CAT1s if CAT1 is people.
I’m not saying any of the above is the backbone of my reasoning here but these are things that are showing up in the show and they do seem to be pointing the same direction as what I’m saying. Ignoring them entirely I think the theory doesn’t hold up but with them I think it’s very clear.
Conclusion
I don’t have much of a wrap up here. Anyone who’s been reading my posts for a while has known that I’ve never thought this theory worked. It’s not something I ever get too deep into because I’m also obviously happy for people to have ideas I disagree with, as am I happy for them to disagree with my ideas. That’s just healthy theorising. I’d been considering writing this for a while though but was mostly held back by not wanting to come across as some sort of arbiter of what is and isn’t correct, and didn’t want to seem like I was calling anyone out specifically. However a few people now said they wanted to see this and there are enough instances of parallel thought on this theory that it’s impossible for me to really single people out now. So here we are.Just to reiterate for people that did/do believe this theory I don’t think anyone was stupid and/or wrong for thinking it. I hope if the above has convinced you that I’m right about it that you’re not dissuaded from making and sharing future theories. I’ve have 3 or 4 terrible CAT# theories and a few R# theories too. My current ideas on DPHW and R# might be awfully wrong in the long run and that’ll be okay.
That’s me anyway, hope this was at the very least an interesting read if it didn’t manage to be a convincing one. Bonzo! Bonzo!! Bonzo!!!
2024.05.21 23:05 Bonzos-number-1-fan Putting the CAT# Back in the Bag: The Flaws With Person/Place/Object
Hi, I’m bonzos-number-1-fan You might know me from such theories as; "Theory of Fears; or, Zur Furchtlehre", "What R# Means: The ABCs of Fear" or, "Padlocks, How Do They Even Work?".
I’m back with another essay about this show. Today’s subject is a little different from previous ones. Rather than explaining what I think something in this show is, I’ll be explaining what I think it isn’t. What I’m going to be talking about is the very popular theory that CAT1/2/3 means the supernatural aspect is a Person/Place/Object.
Because I’m talking about other people’s ideas here I do want to start off by saying I understand why this theory is attractive and I don’t think anyone is stupid or anything for believing it. I just personally think there are angles from which it doesn’t work and that the sum of them makes it fairly certain to be untrue. I could be very wrong about that, and my other theories, or I could be very right. I don’t think either scenario matters much. This essay isn’t about being right but about talking about a big thing in the community. I just happen to not believe this one and people have signalled interest in hearing why.
So with all that out of the way I’m going to start by establishing the terminology being used. Then I’ll break down what this theory is positing and follow it up with the ways I think it does and doesn’t work. That’s basically it but with 16 episodes and supplemental material to cover it’s still not going to be terribly short.
Huge thanks to @brettanomycroft for proof reading/editing this madness.
Now we know what they look like, what is it we know about them? Well, not much at all. From the show itself we know there are CAT1s, CAT2s, CAT3s and CAT23s. From the Klaus excel sheet that was found as part of the ARG (and can be found here) we also know there are CAT12s and CAT13s. With that information we can say with some certainty that CAT1, CAT2, and CAT3 are non-mutually exclusive groupings. It's very likely not a linear scale of some description—i.e CAT23 isn't between CAT2 and CAT3—because CAT13 doesn't fit such a scale. Which means that where there are two numbers in a CAT# that incident likely fits both groups rather than being a new group. This also strongly implies that an incident could be CAT123 although we have yet to see that demonstrated.
We also know that CAT is short for "Category". In the Klaus sheet these numbers are located in the "Kategorie" column. "Kategorie" being German for "category". This unfortunately doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. CAT#s denote some form of grouping.
There is only one other fact we know about CAT#s and that's this:
The second is the “subjective method” in which the assessor chooses the CAT# based on the incident itself. The subjective method has a larger assumption built into it in that they know what CAT#s are. They don’t know what DPHW is and have shown no indication of knowing what CAT# is either. So I’d say it’s less likely that CAT#s are subjective rather than objective. However, for the purposes of this essay I will assume that both are as likely to be true as each other and will refer to them both. Different cases show different flaws when one of these is true over the other, so both will get discussed.
As I have mentioned this isn’t a theory with a single theorist or origin to point to. As such this theory isn’t a monolith and there is variation in how these categories are presented from theory to theory. Sometimes “Person” is literal and other times it includes any sentient thing, “places” aren’t always strictly physical locations, and the narrative framing of what “objects” are may shift. As such I will be taking the broadest interpretation of these categories as their definitions.
People will include animals and other sentient beings. Places will include metaphysical locations. Objects won’t need to be physical in nature. This is both the fairest I can be to all theories and also the strongest I can make this theory. The broader I can make these definitions, the more different ideas can be represented and the more wiggle room the CAT#s get.
What I’ll do next is run through all the incidents the show has mentioned and explain them as I see it. We’ll start with the ones that fit this theory well because they require little explanation. Then when that’s established we’ll talk about the places I think this theory falls down.
CAT1RB4824 Injury (Needles) -/- Intimidation: Needles is definitely a person, no question there.
CAT1RB2275 Mascot (Kids) -/- Murder: Bonzo walks, “talks”, and probably thinks. He’s a person.
CAT1B4728 Mascot (Kids) -/- Frenzy: Bonzo is still doing that stuff so is still a person.
CAT1RB4426 Transformation (Snake) -/-Horde: There was a person and they turned into snakes. Snakes count as people here too. Given the amount of snakes this is the most CAT1 CAT1.
CAT1RB-6451 Hunt (Aristocratic) -/- Compulsion: Lady M is the most person on this list.
CAT1RB1565 Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac: Definitely involves a person doing something supernatural.
CAT2RB2377 Disappearance (Undetermined) -/- Invitation: A spooky theatre is a location for sure.
CAT3C7494 Collection (Blood) -/- Musical: A magical violin is definitely an object.
CAT3RB3354 Dice (Bone) -/- Fate: Bone dice are inarguably objects.
CAT3RB4622 Gambling (Application) -/- Murder: It’s another stretch to call an app an object but, again, happy to give it to the theory.
This issue is further seen in the methodology of assigning CAT#s.Objectively it has the same problem all objective assignments do. Reanimation implies there is going to be a reanimated person so restating that doesn’t add much. If we look at the subjective method then this is chosen largely at random. There isn’t enough of an indication in this incident to clearly state which CAT this is. So it’s neither helped in the assessment of the incident and doesn’t provide anything for response because all choices are justifiable.
CAT1RB4426 Transformation (Snake) -/- Horde: Not misremembering here either. There is a problem with this one in that it’s demonstrated to be an infection. This makes the source of the affliction basically unknowable. The source could qualify it for other CATs but the larger issue here is that what CAT1 means here and what it means elsewhere are not that comparable. Needles, Bonzo, and Lady M are all sentient and independent. The afflicted we see in this case are normal people until they get very rapidly sick, summon a portal to the snake dimension in their throats, and die. Which leaves CAT1 translating to “something in the rough shape of a person” which is a really wide range of interpretations. Which is something I feel has little practical utility in either assessing or responding to these incidents.
CAT1RB1565 Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac: Still not misremembering. While you can say that Ink5oul or Madame E are the person in this instance there is a major conflict here with CAT3RBC1567 Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic. If Daria’s transformation was CAT3 because tattoos are objects then there is no reasonable justification that this isn’t at least CAT13. It’s the same person, doing the same thing, to a very similar result but in a different CAT. The headers are entirely different, and so this/that may be misfiled, but it highlights a problem with Daria’s incident. If the incident with the Tattoo header isn’t an object then tattoos are probably not objects under this scheme.
If this is objective then this is always a person, or on people, which makes a great deal of sense. However if that’s the case then the objective method for Daria’s case sort of falls apart because there wasn’t really a secondary object there. Additionally, because all incidents with that case’s header being objects is a huge stretch. So if this incident, or that incident, is misfiled it doesn’t really matter. In either case (or even if both of them are misfiled), it largely disproves that tattoos are objects, creating a larger issue with that theory as it affects more than just this case. Subjectively as far as we’re aware Sam filed all three of the Ink5oul incidents. So he chose an object in Daria’s case but then opted against it here despite there being no real reason to that we can see. You could say that now Ink5oul has been in it more, he thinks Ink5oul has some sort of supernatural power themselves which makes them a CAT1; that would still make this CAT13 as episode 11 was CAT23.
What we hear about this incident is entirely focused on the doll itself and questions about its nature. It’s a split between Dolls (Watching) and Dolls (Human Skin) with the former being chosen as the latter is only implied. Dolls themselves are objects which would make this CAT3, and if the doll is sentient a CAT1. However, this is placed in CAT2 indicating that it's actually caused by the location in some respect. In order for that to make sense you have to make 3 major assumptions. Assumption 1: despite no indication in the conversation about this incident suggesting anything outside of the doll being strange there was actually a “haunted house”. Assumption 2: despite there being sections far more descriptive of locations—i.e Architecture—Dolls is more suited to this incident. Assumption 3: despite this being Sam’s/the audience’s first exposure to this system it leaves out the real source of the incident when, narratively, this is an explanation of it. Those are some fairly major assumptions to make to justify a theory.
This also has issues with either method of assigning CAT#s. If CAT# is objective then every Dolls (Watching) is actually a location. Unlike with something like Reanimation (Partial) that doesn't make much sense as dolls themselves are objects. In the subjective method, Alice assigned this as a location but their discussion of it centred solely on an object and she didn't explain to Sam why she did it.
CAT2RC3338 Agglomeration (Miscellany) -/- Congregation: This might be my favourite example of issues I have with this theory. To explain it we’ll look at this from both the objective and subjective methods while taking into account outside knowledge of the show from an audience perspective.
Everyone I’ve seen posit this theory attributes CAT2 to Hilltop here.They do this solely because of TMA. There is nothing in this episode that makes Hilltop out to be anything special in any way. But because Hilltop is special in TMA the audience is primed to view this location as special. It may very well be but there is no reason to think that. In fact, I’d argue there's reason to think otherwise based on this episode, but that is a little off topic for this essay. However from an objective perspective it can’t take Hilltop into account because not every header of this sort will take place in Hilltop. They could only manifest at special locations but that seems like a stretch. If it is true, why does this unique combination of words not include a word that describes it as a location? Subjectively it could be a misfile. Celia would be the only person who knows what Hilltop is in TMA— assuming some of the theories on her are correct—but that doesn’t make Hilltop important in and of itself. It also means she ignored large parts of this incident when filing it just to focus on that element. As this case is the one Alice uses to teach Celia the system with, then this also relies on Alice knowing or not correcting Celia. In either scenario this case is full of people of definite supernatural quality, lacks a location of supernatural quality, but has 100s of objects of dubious supernatural quality. Something doesn’t make sense here if this theory is correct.
CAT2RBC3366 Architecture (Liminal) -/- Hunger: This one is interesting because it shows a flaw not in the theory per se but in the methodology as a whole if the theory is correct. If CAT# is what the theory says it is why is this just CAT2? It being CAT2 at all is redundant when its header describes a location but in this incident we see it’s populated by supernatural creatures. I call them Uncannybals—as should you—and they’re monsters living in the shadow realm. That seems like very important information to include. So it should be CAT12 as there are both people and a place. The OIAR methodology already has the problem that you can’t include multiple headers but CAT#s, if they worked like this, could be used to alleviate that issue. The way it’s implemented here just makes it virtually pointless to include at all.
The method problems are the same as above too. Now this case is the one most likely of the three to be misfiled. So you could say that Daria's case is misfiled and would actually be CAT1 if filed correctly. Tattoos aren’t objects, this case is a mistake. Then you could explain that Marked is CAT23 because corpses are objects (so 13 if he was alive). Objectively this header always being CAT3 still poses problems because we know there are Transformations that don’t require objects. Which brings us back to the problem of “why are the headers so bad at describing these things?”. If it’s subjective Sam decided that object instead of person made more sense here. Seemingly based on the fact that there is a tattoo. Later on he changed his mind about this but choosing it in the first place seems like a stretch. If he knew what these things meant in order to choose them, object seems like a very unobvious choice.
Objectively all compelling corpse tattoos are found in magical graveyards—or morgues, tombs, goth bars, and other corpse hangouts—and I think we can all agree that’s sort of wack. Subjectively Sam decided the graveyard was magic despite there being nothing to suggest that.
The big thing to know here is that Kluas’ cases lack headers entirely but that some Klaus cases have notes and it’s these notes attached. It’s only one’s with those notes I’m interested in for this because of how they relate to things we’ve heard. One case is CAT3RBC1567 with the note “tinte”. CAT3RBC1567 is Daria’s case and “tinte” is German for “ink”. So this is very likely that case. There are 4 other cases with that note and they’re two CAT1s, a CAT3, and a CAT13. So even if Daria’s case is misfiled not all of those are the correct CAT# for that assumption. There are also two CAT1s and a CAT2 marked “Herr B”, which is “Mr B” in English. These aren’t tied to a Bonzo case we’ve heard yet but one of them does take place in Bland Theme Park, Somerset. That’s not definitively Bonzo but it’s a good hint at it.
Additionally there are 6 CAT2 cases that have the note “Katzen LOL” or “Cats LOL” which you’d expect to be CAT1s if there are cats involved. In a similar vein there are one CAT1 and five CAT2s marked “Kreigsvolk” which is literally “War People” but more likely “Army” or “Soldiers”. Again, you’d expect more CAT1s if CAT1 is people.
I’m not saying any of the above is the backbone of my reasoning here but these are things that are showing up in the show and they do seem to be pointing the same direction as what I’m saying. Ignoring them entirely I think the theory doesn’t hold up but with them I think it’s very clear.
Just to reiterate for people that did/do believe this theory I don’t think anyone was stupid and/or wrong for thinking it. I hope if the above has convinced you that I’m right about it that you’re not dissuaded from making and sharing future theories. I’ve have 3 or 4 terrible CAT# theories and a few R# theories too. My current ideas on DPHW and R# might be awfully wrong in the long run and that’ll be okay.
That’s me anyway, hope this was at the very least an interesting read if it didn’t manage to be a convincing one. Bonzo! Bonzo!! Bonzo!!!
submitted by Bonzos-number-1-fan to TheMagnusArchives [link] [comments]
I’m back with another essay about this show. Today’s subject is a little different from previous ones. Rather than explaining what I think something in this show is, I’ll be explaining what I think it isn’t. What I’m going to be talking about is the very popular theory that CAT1/2/3 means the supernatural aspect is a Person/Place/Object.
Because I’m talking about other people’s ideas here I do want to start off by saying I understand why this theory is attractive and I don’t think anyone is stupid or anything for believing it. I just personally think there are angles from which it doesn’t work and that the sum of them makes it fairly certain to be untrue. I could be very wrong about that, and my other theories, or I could be very right. I don’t think either scenario matters much. This essay isn’t about being right but about talking about a big thing in the community. I just happen to not believe this one and people have signalled interest in hearing why.
So with all that out of the way I’m going to start by establishing the terminology being used. Then I’ll break down what this theory is positing and follow it up with the ways I think it does and doesn’t work. That’s basically it but with 16 episodes and supplemental material to cover it’s still not going to be terribly short.
Huge thanks to @brettanomycroft for proof reading/editing this madness.
Spoilers for The Magnus Protocol up to and including episode 16.
What is a CAT#?
A CAT# is the first 4-5 characters of an OIAR's incident report header. While these are not often referenced in the main body of the show, each incident we hear is accompanied by one in the show's description and transcript. As an example this is the case number for the first incident of episode 1.CAT1RBC5257-12052022-09012024The first line is the case number. CAT1 is this incident's CAT#. The RBC (R#/Rank) and 5257 (DPHW) have been topics I've discussed in essays I linked at the start. The second line is the header and is formatted “Section (Subsection) -/- Crosslink [Format]”. CAT#s is all we're concerning ourselves with today but I will be using this terminology going forward.
Reanimation (Partial) -/- Regret [Email]
Now we know what they look like, what is it we know about them? Well, not much at all. From the show itself we know there are CAT1s, CAT2s, CAT3s and CAT23s. From the Klaus excel sheet that was found as part of the ARG (and can be found here) we also know there are CAT12s and CAT13s. With that information we can say with some certainty that CAT1, CAT2, and CAT3 are non-mutually exclusive groupings. It's very likely not a linear scale of some description—i.e CAT23 isn't between CAT2 and CAT3—because CAT13 doesn't fit such a scale. Which means that where there are two numbers in a CAT# that incident likely fits both groups rather than being a new group. This also strongly implies that an incident could be CAT123 although we have yet to see that demonstrated.
We also know that CAT is short for "Category". In the Klaus sheet these numbers are located in the "Kategorie" column. "Kategorie" being German for "category". This unfortunately doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. CAT#s denote some form of grouping.
There is only one other fact we know about CAT#s and that's this:
ALICEWhich is not a lot to go on at all but it does raise an important question. How is a CAT# assigned? There are two major assumptions you could make here. The first is the “objective method” and that it’s a factor of either the section, subject, DPHW or a combination thereof. This means that they are pre-assigned in the same way that DPHWs are. This method has an inherent trait in that it means every header manifests as the same sort of thing. While it’s not a problem to say that every Doll (Watching) is the same— that could just be the rules of the setting—it does make CAT# itself somewhat redundant. The terminology of the headers will often describe something inherent about the CAT#. We have a CAT3 case that’s Dice (Bone) -/- Fate but dice are objects so why would you need to restate that?
Right, so, after each entry there's four numbers. That’s the DPHW. So, “dolls comma watching” is… 1157. Then you cross reference with the table here, that would be a 2-C, and then you type that into the box here, along with date of incident if there is one and today’s date.
The second is the “subjective method” in which the assessor chooses the CAT# based on the incident itself. The subjective method has a larger assumption built into it in that they know what CAT#s are. They don’t know what DPHW is and have shown no indication of knowing what CAT# is either. So I’d say it’s less likely that CAT#s are subjective rather than objective. However, for the purposes of this essay I will assume that both are as likely to be true as each other and will refer to them both. Different cases show different flaws when one of these is true over the other, so both will get discussed.
What is Person/Place/Object?
Person/Place/Object is the theory that the three single digit CAT#s stand for Person, Place, and Object respectively. Combinations of these digits represent that an incident falls into each category. A CAT1 incident indicates that the supernatural element of an incident is a person in some respect, while a CAT23 would indicate both a place and an object.As I have mentioned this isn’t a theory with a single theorist or origin to point to. As such this theory isn’t a monolith and there is variation in how these categories are presented from theory to theory. Sometimes “Person” is literal and other times it includes any sentient thing, “places” aren’t always strictly physical locations, and the narrative framing of what “objects” are may shift. As such I will be taking the broadest interpretation of these categories as their definitions.
People will include animals and other sentient beings. Places will include metaphysical locations. Objects won’t need to be physical in nature. This is both the fairest I can be to all theories and also the strongest I can make this theory. The broader I can make these definitions, the more different ideas can be represented and the more wiggle room the CAT#s get.
What I’ll do next is run through all the incidents the show has mentioned and explain them as I see it. We’ll start with the ones that fit this theory well because they require little explanation. Then when that’s established we’ll talk about the places I think this theory falls down.
Which Incidents fit well?
CAT1:
CAT1RBC5257 Reanimation (Partial) -/- Regret: There is something like a zombie in this incident. That’s something like a person and so fits well.CAT1RB4824 Injury (Needles) -/- Intimidation: Needles is definitely a person, no question there.
CAT1RB2275 Mascot (Kids) -/- Murder: Bonzo walks, “talks”, and probably thinks. He’s a person.
CAT1B4728 Mascot (Kids) -/- Frenzy: Bonzo is still doing that stuff so is still a person.
CAT1RB4426 Transformation (Snake) -/-Horde: There was a person and they turned into snakes. Snakes count as people here too. Given the amount of snakes this is the most CAT1 CAT1.
CAT1RB-6451 Hunt (Aristocratic) -/- Compulsion: Lady M is the most person on this list.
CAT1RB1565 Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac: Definitely involves a person doing something supernatural.
CAT2:
CAT2C8175 Infection (Full Body) -/- Arboreal: This incident takes place in a time and space bending garden. Makes perfect sense for CAT2.CAT2RB2377 Disappearance (Undetermined) -/- Invitation: A spooky theatre is a location for sure.
CAT3:
CAT3RBC1567 Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic: In this instance the object in question is the tattoo. Which I think is really stretching the definition of “object” but I’m still going to give it to the theory.CAT3C7494 Collection (Blood) -/- Musical: A magical violin is definitely an object.
CAT3RB3354 Dice (Bone) -/- Fate: Bone dice are inarguably objects.
CAT3RB4622 Gambling (Application) -/- Murder: It’s another stretch to call an app an object but, again, happy to give it to the theory.
CAT23:
CAT23RAB2155 Transformation (Eyes) -/- Trespass: In this incident’s case the location is the Magnus Institute and the object is the box RedCanary stole. I think there are some problems with this one but there is enough to get through.Which Incidents Don't?
CAT1:
CAT1RBC5257 Reanimation (Partial) -/- Regret: You’re not misremembering, I did say this fit well. Because on the surface it really does make sense, but I think if you push just a little it makes very little sense. Why? Because any category you want to place this in is easily justified in the incident itself. There is a zombie-esque thing but also a Frankenstein-esque figure for CAT1. CAT 2 would be the location of the graveyard itself. It was chosen by the presumed creator of this zombie-like creature and is depicted similar to the one in Marked, a CAT23 incident. If this theory is correct and the Marked graveyard is supernatural I can’t see a reason to discount that possibility here. CAT3 fits too because the presumed creation method is that they were Frankenstein-ed which does require some sort of surgical apparatus. But whichever choice you make you’ve not really clarified the incident at all.This issue is further seen in the methodology of assigning CAT#s.Objectively it has the same problem all objective assignments do. Reanimation implies there is going to be a reanimated person so restating that doesn’t add much. If we look at the subjective method then this is chosen largely at random. There isn’t enough of an indication in this incident to clearly state which CAT this is. So it’s neither helped in the assessment of the incident and doesn’t provide anything for response because all choices are justifiable.
CAT1RB4426 Transformation (Snake) -/- Horde: Not misremembering here either. There is a problem with this one in that it’s demonstrated to be an infection. This makes the source of the affliction basically unknowable. The source could qualify it for other CATs but the larger issue here is that what CAT1 means here and what it means elsewhere are not that comparable. Needles, Bonzo, and Lady M are all sentient and independent. The afflicted we see in this case are normal people until they get very rapidly sick, summon a portal to the snake dimension in their throats, and die. Which leaves CAT1 translating to “something in the rough shape of a person” which is a really wide range of interpretations. Which is something I feel has little practical utility in either assessing or responding to these incidents.
CAT1RB1565 Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac: Still not misremembering. While you can say that Ink5oul or Madame E are the person in this instance there is a major conflict here with CAT3RBC1567 Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic. If Daria’s transformation was CAT3 because tattoos are objects then there is no reasonable justification that this isn’t at least CAT13. It’s the same person, doing the same thing, to a very similar result but in a different CAT. The headers are entirely different, and so this/that may be misfiled, but it highlights a problem with Daria’s incident. If the incident with the Tattoo header isn’t an object then tattoos are probably not objects under this scheme.
If this is objective then this is always a person, or on people, which makes a great deal of sense. However if that’s the case then the objective method for Daria’s case sort of falls apart because there wasn’t really a secondary object there. Additionally, because all incidents with that case’s header being objects is a huge stretch. So if this incident, or that incident, is misfiled it doesn’t really matter. In either case (or even if both of them are misfiled), it largely disproves that tattoos are objects, creating a larger issue with that theory as it affects more than just this case. Subjectively as far as we’re aware Sam filed all three of the Ink5oul incidents. So he chose an object in Daria’s case but then opted against it here despite there being no real reason to that we can see. You could say that now Ink5oul has been in it more, he thinks Ink5oul has some sort of supernatural power themselves which makes them a CAT1; that would still make this CAT13 as episode 11 was CAT23.
CAT2:
CAT2RC1157 Dolls (Watching): This is a big one in my opinion. It’s not only the first incident we’re told about, but it's both Sam’s and our first exposure to an explanation of the OIAR’s filing system. It’s also one I see ignored in most of the posts that posit the Person/Place/Object theory. That is understandable as we don’t hear the incident itself but we do hear enough of it to show that there is a flaw in the theory.What we hear about this incident is entirely focused on the doll itself and questions about its nature. It’s a split between Dolls (Watching) and Dolls (Human Skin) with the former being chosen as the latter is only implied. Dolls themselves are objects which would make this CAT3, and if the doll is sentient a CAT1. However, this is placed in CAT2 indicating that it's actually caused by the location in some respect. In order for that to make sense you have to make 3 major assumptions. Assumption 1: despite no indication in the conversation about this incident suggesting anything outside of the doll being strange there was actually a “haunted house”. Assumption 2: despite there being sections far more descriptive of locations—i.e Architecture—Dolls is more suited to this incident. Assumption 3: despite this being Sam’s/the audience’s first exposure to this system it leaves out the real source of the incident when, narratively, this is an explanation of it. Those are some fairly major assumptions to make to justify a theory.
This also has issues with either method of assigning CAT#s. If CAT# is objective then every Dolls (Watching) is actually a location. Unlike with something like Reanimation (Partial) that doesn't make much sense as dolls themselves are objects. In the subjective method, Alice assigned this as a location but their discussion of it centred solely on an object and she didn't explain to Sam why she did it.
CAT2RC3338 Agglomeration (Miscellany) -/- Congregation: This might be my favourite example of issues I have with this theory. To explain it we’ll look at this from both the objective and subjective methods while taking into account outside knowledge of the show from an audience perspective.
Everyone I’ve seen posit this theory attributes CAT2 to Hilltop here.They do this solely because of TMA. There is nothing in this episode that makes Hilltop out to be anything special in any way. But because Hilltop is special in TMA the audience is primed to view this location as special. It may very well be but there is no reason to think that. In fact, I’d argue there's reason to think otherwise based on this episode, but that is a little off topic for this essay. However from an objective perspective it can’t take Hilltop into account because not every header of this sort will take place in Hilltop. They could only manifest at special locations but that seems like a stretch. If it is true, why does this unique combination of words not include a word that describes it as a location? Subjectively it could be a misfile. Celia would be the only person who knows what Hilltop is in TMA— assuming some of the theories on her are correct—but that doesn’t make Hilltop important in and of itself. It also means she ignored large parts of this incident when filing it just to focus on that element. As this case is the one Alice uses to teach Celia the system with, then this also relies on Alice knowing or not correcting Celia. In either scenario this case is full of people of definite supernatural quality, lacks a location of supernatural quality, but has 100s of objects of dubious supernatural quality. Something doesn’t make sense here if this theory is correct.
CAT2RBC3366 Architecture (Liminal) -/- Hunger: This one is interesting because it shows a flaw not in the theory per se but in the methodology as a whole if the theory is correct. If CAT# is what the theory says it is why is this just CAT2? It being CAT2 at all is redundant when its header describes a location but in this incident we see it’s populated by supernatural creatures. I call them Uncannybals—as should you—and they’re monsters living in the shadow realm. That seems like very important information to include. So it should be CAT12 as there are both people and a place. The OIAR methodology already has the problem that you can’t include multiple headers but CAT#s, if they worked like this, could be used to alleviate that issue. The way it’s implemented here just makes it virtually pointless to include at all.
CAT3:
CAT3RBC1567 Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic: This was largely already covered. So simply put if Transformation (Full) -/- Dysmorphic is an object because of the tattoo, and Tattoo (Corpse) -/- Compulsion is an object because of the tattoo, but Tattoo (Influencer) -/- Cardiac isn’t an object despite being virtually identical to this case then CAT3 doesn't mean object.The method problems are the same as above too. Now this case is the one most likely of the three to be misfiled. So you could say that Daria's case is misfiled and would actually be CAT1 if filed correctly. Tattoos aren’t objects, this case is a mistake. Then you could explain that Marked is CAT23 because corpses are objects (so 13 if he was alive). Objectively this header always being CAT3 still poses problems because we know there are Transformations that don’t require objects. Which brings us back to the problem of “why are the headers so bad at describing these things?”. If it’s subjective Sam decided that object instead of person made more sense here. Seemingly based on the fact that there is a tattoo. Later on he changed his mind about this but choosing it in the first place seems like a stretch. If he knew what these things meant in order to choose them, object seems like a very unobvious choice.
CAT23:
CAT23RC5246 Tattoo (Corpse) -/- Compulsion: This one is fairly clear to me. I’m going to be very generous and suggest that the corpse here is the object based on the above. The reason this one is a problem is that there wasn’t a location here. I’ve seen people say that it must be the graveyard but that’s confirmation bias IMO. It wasn’t a large feature of the episode, didn’t do anything coastal graveyards don’t do, and had no overt supernatural properties to it. I don’t personally think anyone would categorise this as CAT23 based on the incident alone but because CAT23 people will justify it to fit. That’s not inherently a problem because sometimes you have to make assumptions but given all of the above I don’t think that assumption is a reasonable one to make.Objectively all compelling corpse tattoos are found in magical graveyards—or morgues, tombs, goth bars, and other corpse hangouts—and I think we can all agree that’s sort of wack. Subjectively Sam decided the graveyard was magic despite there being nothing to suggest that.
Klaus’ CAT#s:
This is a bit of a special section. I briefly mention Klaus in the intro but I didn’t mention that some of the incidents we’ve heard have been found on the Klaus sheet. The canonicity of these aren’t 100% and I would say the show takes precedent so this is supplemental rather than definitive. I think I’ve more than shown that this theory doesn’t hold up. This is more of an academic exercise.The big thing to know here is that Kluas’ cases lack headers entirely but that some Klaus cases have notes and it’s these notes attached. It’s only one’s with those notes I’m interested in for this because of how they relate to things we’ve heard. One case is CAT3RBC1567 with the note “tinte”. CAT3RBC1567 is Daria’s case and “tinte” is German for “ink”. So this is very likely that case. There are 4 other cases with that note and they’re two CAT1s, a CAT3, and a CAT13. So even if Daria’s case is misfiled not all of those are the correct CAT# for that assumption. There are also two CAT1s and a CAT2 marked “Herr B”, which is “Mr B” in English. These aren’t tied to a Bonzo case we’ve heard yet but one of them does take place in Bland Theme Park, Somerset. That’s not definitively Bonzo but it’s a good hint at it.
Additionally there are 6 CAT2 cases that have the note “Katzen LOL” or “Cats LOL” which you’d expect to be CAT1s if there are cats involved. In a similar vein there are one CAT1 and five CAT2s marked “Kreigsvolk” which is literally “War People” but more likely “Army” or “Soldiers”. Again, you’d expect more CAT1s if CAT1 is people.
I’m not saying any of the above is the backbone of my reasoning here but these are things that are showing up in the show and they do seem to be pointing the same direction as what I’m saying. Ignoring them entirely I think the theory doesn’t hold up but with them I think it’s very clear.
Conclusion
I don’t have much of a wrap up here. Anyone who’s been reading my posts for a while has known that I’ve never thought this theory worked. It’s not something I ever get too deep into because I’m also obviously happy for people to have ideas I disagree with, as am I happy for them to disagree with my ideas. That’s just healthy theorising. I’d been considering writing this for a while though but was mostly held back by not wanting to come across as some sort of arbiter of what is and isn’t correct, and didn’t want to seem like I was calling anyone out specifically. However a few people now said they wanted to see this and there are enough instances of parallel thought on this theory that it’s impossible for me to really single people out now. So here we are.Just to reiterate for people that did/do believe this theory I don’t think anyone was stupid and/or wrong for thinking it. I hope if the above has convinced you that I’m right about it that you’re not dissuaded from making and sharing future theories. I’ve have 3 or 4 terrible CAT# theories and a few R# theories too. My current ideas on DPHW and R# might be awfully wrong in the long run and that’ll be okay.
That’s me anyway, hope this was at the very least an interesting read if it didn’t manage to be a convincing one. Bonzo! Bonzo!! Bonzo!!!
2024.05.21 22:26 dink87 Heat pump/furnace install - price reasonable or crazy?
Hi,
I have a 20 year old furnace and an older Heat pump (Bryant). I'm trying to figure out if this quote is good at all. They are allegedly giving me a discount because of their May discount PLUS a discount if I commit TODAY (I told him upfront this is so salesy). The price below includes all the discounts.
Is the hyperheat any good? My house is about 3000 sqft but our 2nd floor gets roasted by the sun as its West Facing and covered with windows.
Total cost with federal rebate: $19,096
Mitsubishi PVFY AHU w/ Hyper Heat 48k BTU LEVEL 2 1.0 $25,594.12 $25,594.12
System: Mitsubishi Heat Pump System
Model# PVFY-P48NAMU-E1/ MXZSM48NAMHZ
Stage(s): InverteVariable Speed Blower
Tonage/BTU: 4/48,000
SEEHSPF: 16.5/11
12 year Workmanship Warranty
12 year Labor Warranty
12 year Parts Warranty from manufacturer
Condensate Pump (if applicable)
Drain piping
Lineset piping
Equipment pad
Communication Thermostat
Part 1: Removing Existing System
-Recover existing refrigerant if applicable
-Disconnect system power
-Disassemble Air HandleFurnace and Condensing unit
Part 2: Setting New Units
-Install new equipment pad
-Install new Condensing Unit -Install Air Handle Furnace
-Modify return air ductwork
-Modify supply air ductwork
Part 3: Piping/ Electrical -Install new lineset *Fabricate flare connections (torque to manufacture spec) *Pressure test system (350 PSI brazed systems, 650 PSI flared systems) Bring system into deep vacuum
(free from moisture) (350 microns)
-Mount new disconnect and system electrical whip
-Rewire Thermostat/Mount thermostat
Part 4: System Start Up
*Perform a proper refrigerant system charge by measuring sub-cooling
-Verify system safety controls
-Configure thermostat settings
-Complete an entire system start up report -Take system photos
-Record information to register for warranty
-Clean up entire work area
submitted by dink87 to Seattle [link] [comments]
I have a 20 year old furnace and an older Heat pump (Bryant). I'm trying to figure out if this quote is good at all. They are allegedly giving me a discount because of their May discount PLUS a discount if I commit TODAY (I told him upfront this is so salesy). The price below includes all the discounts.
Is the hyperheat any good? My house is about 3000 sqft but our 2nd floor gets roasted by the sun as its West Facing and covered with windows.
Total cost with federal rebate: $19,096
Mitsubishi PVFY AHU w/ Hyper Heat 48k BTU LEVEL 2 1.0 $25,594.12 $25,594.12
System: Mitsubishi Heat Pump System
Model# PVFY-P48NAMU-E1/ MXZSM48NAMHZ
Stage(s): InverteVariable Speed Blower
Tonage/BTU: 4/48,000
SEEHSPF: 16.5/11
12 year Workmanship Warranty
12 year Labor Warranty
12 year Parts Warranty from manufacturer
Condensate Pump (if applicable)
Drain piping
Lineset piping
Equipment pad
Communication Thermostat
Part 1: Removing Existing System
-Recover existing refrigerant if applicable
-Disconnect system power
-Disassemble Air HandleFurnace and Condensing unit
Part 2: Setting New Units
-Install new equipment pad
-Install new Condensing Unit -Install Air Handle Furnace
-Modify return air ductwork
-Modify supply air ductwork
Part 3: Piping/ Electrical -Install new lineset *Fabricate flare connections (torque to manufacture spec) *Pressure test system (350 PSI brazed systems, 650 PSI flared systems) Bring system into deep vacuum
(free from moisture) (350 microns)
-Mount new disconnect and system electrical whip
-Rewire Thermostat/Mount thermostat
Part 4: System Start Up
*Perform a proper refrigerant system charge by measuring sub-cooling
-Verify system safety controls
-Configure thermostat settings
-Complete an entire system start up report -Take system photos
-Record information to register for warranty
-Clean up entire work area
2024.05.21 22:19 Clio19 Credit vs loan financing
I'm in a bit of a pickle and was hoping people here might have some advice. I know we messed up, and I'm hoping people might have some advice for what to do.
We were buying my husband a drum set, and he contacted a drum store in another state that had the set he wanted. My husband was in contact with them, and they mentioned a special financing deal for 0% for 2 years. We had the money set aside to buy it in cash, but decided to take advantage of the deal. We filled out the paperwork, which to me looked like a regular application for a line of credit. My husband and the salesman were going back and forth about what exactly my husband was getting, any additional discounts; etc, and the salesman encouraged him to fill out the credit application. We put a cushion in the amount we applied for since my husband was still deciding on a few things.
The credit application was approved (it was a form that asked for income, SSN; etc), and the salesman told my husband that as soon as he saw things went through they could finalize the order. I'll add that we applied for credit through another music store a month or two ago, and the application was the exact same. That was a line of credit. The application went through, and the salesman basically disappeared (they had been on the phone and communicating over the company's chat). My husband tried to place an order, but couldn't reach the guy. A day or two later, we still hadn't heard back. My husband found the same set at a deeper discount elsewhere, so he continued reaching out to the original shop. He finally heard back after another day or two, and the salesman skirted a number of questions about the financing; etc, so we decided to purchase the set for cash elsewhere. He explained it to the salesman, the salesman seemed to understand, and we thought that was it. To our understanding, this was a line of credit that we just weren't going to use, and that we could close. Almost a week later, we received an email from the salesman that he had packed up the set and was shipping it out. My husband called again, and reminded him that they had spoken on the phone and we were purchasing it elsewhere. Then the salesman asked him what else he was going to buy with his credit, and explained that we had taken out a LOAN for several thousand dollars and that the financial institution had transferred them the $. He said there's no way to reverse it, and that we have to pay it back whether we buy something or not. The application says "credit application" at the top, it says in multiple places that we're getting credit, and I don't see anything about this being a loan (when I've applied for loans before, it has clearly stated "loan"). It's through United Midwest Savings. Should I contact them directly? How do I get out of this? Am I screwed?
submitted by Clio19 to personalfinance [link] [comments]
We were buying my husband a drum set, and he contacted a drum store in another state that had the set he wanted. My husband was in contact with them, and they mentioned a special financing deal for 0% for 2 years. We had the money set aside to buy it in cash, but decided to take advantage of the deal. We filled out the paperwork, which to me looked like a regular application for a line of credit. My husband and the salesman were going back and forth about what exactly my husband was getting, any additional discounts; etc, and the salesman encouraged him to fill out the credit application. We put a cushion in the amount we applied for since my husband was still deciding on a few things.
The credit application was approved (it was a form that asked for income, SSN; etc), and the salesman told my husband that as soon as he saw things went through they could finalize the order. I'll add that we applied for credit through another music store a month or two ago, and the application was the exact same. That was a line of credit. The application went through, and the salesman basically disappeared (they had been on the phone and communicating over the company's chat). My husband tried to place an order, but couldn't reach the guy. A day or two later, we still hadn't heard back. My husband found the same set at a deeper discount elsewhere, so he continued reaching out to the original shop. He finally heard back after another day or two, and the salesman skirted a number of questions about the financing; etc, so we decided to purchase the set for cash elsewhere. He explained it to the salesman, the salesman seemed to understand, and we thought that was it. To our understanding, this was a line of credit that we just weren't going to use, and that we could close. Almost a week later, we received an email from the salesman that he had packed up the set and was shipping it out. My husband called again, and reminded him that they had spoken on the phone and we were purchasing it elsewhere. Then the salesman asked him what else he was going to buy with his credit, and explained that we had taken out a LOAN for several thousand dollars and that the financial institution had transferred them the $. He said there's no way to reverse it, and that we have to pay it back whether we buy something or not. The application says "credit application" at the top, it says in multiple places that we're getting credit, and I don't see anything about this being a loan (when I've applied for loans before, it has clearly stated "loan"). It's through United Midwest Savings. Should I contact them directly? How do I get out of this? Am I screwed?
2024.05.21 22:09 MrBackBreaker586 GameStop (GME) Deep Dive (DD)
I'll update this as I go. Please check back when you can and point out errors if you can find any.
Let's dive into a comprehensive analysis of GameStop (GME), covering key factors that could influence the stock price, technical analysis, potential catalysts, market sentiment, and important dates. This DD aims to provide a well-rounded understanding of what might impact GME in the near future.
Debt-to-Equity Ratio = Total Debt / Total Equity Debt-to-Equity Ratio = 34.6 million / 1,267.2 million Debt-to-Equity Ratio = 0.027
Adjusted Float Calculation: 306.19 million (Outstanding Shares) - 75.5 million (DRS) - 87.17 million (Institutional Holdings) - (61.46 million + 36.847 million) (Insider Holdings including Cohen's) = 45.213 million
Short Interest Percentage: (64.37 million / 45.213 million) * 100 ≈ 142.3%
Preferred Shares: - Concept: Issuing preferred shares can offer fixed dividends and have priority over common shares in liquidation. - Impact: Preferred shares require board approval and SEC filings, potentially affecting the market and short sellers by reducing the float of common shares.
Stay strong, apes! 🚀🦍💎🙌
Sources: - MarketBeat: www.marketbeat.com - Yahoo Finance: uk.finance.yahoo.com - TradingView: www.tradingview.com - Investing.com: www.investing.com
GameStop recently authorized the issuance of up to 45 million new shares. Here's the potential impact on the stock and short interest:
Volume Trends: - High trading volumes during the January 2021 short squeeze indicate strong market interest. Monitoring volume can help gauge the strength of price movements.
Technical Patterns: - Descending Triangle: The recent chart shows a descending triangle pattern, which is typically bearish. However, a breakout above the resistance line could signal a reversal and potential price increase.
Upcoming Catalysts: - Earnings Report on June 5, 2024: Positive earnings or strategic announcements could boost investor confidence and drive the stock price higher. - Regulatory Deadlines on May 24 and May 31, 2024: Increased transparency and regulatory compliance could impact market dynamics. Nice one, but you forgot one hype date:
investor.gamestop.com
2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (“annual meeting”) on Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., CDT
Preferred Shares and Warrants: - Issuance of Preferred Shares or Warrants: GME could issue preferred shares or warrants to shareholders, creating additional buying pressure as these instruments are exercised.
Naked Short Selling and Regulatory Compliance: - May 24, 2024: Deadline for resolving all outstanding material inconsistencies for FINRA CAT reporting, increasing market transparency and potentially impacting short selling practices. - January 2, 2025: Implementation of new SEC rules, which could further enhance market transparency and impact short interest reporting.
Outstanding Shares: 306.19 million Minus DRS: 75.5 million Minus Institutional Holdings: Approximately 87.17 million Minus Insider Holdings: Approximately 61.46 million + Ryan Cohen's Holdings (36.847 million)
Adjusted Float Calculation: 306.19 million (Outstanding Shares) - 75.5 million (DRS) - 87.17 million (Institutional Holdings) - (61.46 million + 36.847 million) (Insider Holdings including Cohen's) = 45.213 million
Short Interest: 64.37 million shares
Stay strong, apes! TO THE MOON! 🚀🦍💎🙌
submitted by MrBackBreaker586 to u/MrBackBreaker586 [link] [comments]
GameStop (GME) Deep Dive (DD)
Hey Apes! 🦍🚀Let's dive into a comprehensive analysis of GameStop (GME), covering key factors that could influence the stock price, technical analysis, potential catalysts, market sentiment, and important dates. This DD aims to provide a well-rounded understanding of what might impact GME in the near future.
Potential Failure of the LULD Mechanism and Its Impact on a MOASS
The Limit Up-Limit Down (LULD) mechanism is designed to prevent extreme volatility by setting upper and lower price bands for stocks. However, in certain scenarios, this mechanism can fail, potentially leading to the Mother of All Short Squeezes (MOASS). Here’s how this could happen, along with the mathematical implications.How the LULD Mechanism Can Fail
- Extreme Market Volatility:
- Rapid Successive Halts: During periods of extreme volatility, the price of a stock like GME can hit the upper limit repeatedly, causing successive trading halts. This can exacerbate panic and volatility rather than calming the market.
- Example: If GME’s price rapidly moves from $100 to $150 within a short period, hitting multiple LULD halts, it can create a feedback loop of volatility.
- Algorithmic Trading and High-Frequency Trading (HFT):
- Algorithmic Pressure: High-frequency trading algorithms can push prices rapidly, triggering the LULD bands frequently. If these algorithms continue to trade aggressively, they can cause more volatility.
- Market Manipulation: There’s a theoretical risk that traders could manipulate prices by coordinating trades to trigger LULD bands, although such actions are illegal.
- Technical Glitches:
- System Failures: Technical issues or outages can disrupt the LULD mechanism. If trading systems fail during high volatility, it could lead to unmanaged price spikes.
- Market Fragmentation:
- Inconsistent Application: With trading occurring across multiple venues, discrepancies in how LULD bands are applied can lead to inconsistent trading halts and market confusion.
Impact on MOASS
- Short Covering and Buy Pressure:
- Short Interest: If GME has a high short interest (e.g., 64.37 million shares shorted), a rapid price increase can trigger margin calls for short sellers. They will be forced to buy back shares to cover their positions, adding to the buying pressure.
- Example Calculation:
- Initial Price: $20
- Short Interest: 64.37 million shares
- Price Increase: If the price increases to $100, short sellers might need to cover, buying back 64.37 million shares.
- Buying Pressure Dynamics:
- Mathematics of Covering:
- If short sellers need to cover 64.37 million shares and the average daily trading volume is 10 million shares, it would take 6.437 trading days to cover without additional buying pressure.
- However, in a MOASS scenario, buying pressure can skyrocket, reducing the time frame significantly.
- Mathematics of Covering:
- Example Scenario:
- Price Movement and Halts:
- Day 1: Price moves from $20 to $50, triggering multiple LULD halts.
- Day 2: Price moves from $50 to $100 due to continued buying pressure and short covering.
- Mathematical Implication:
- Short sellers covering 64.37 million shares at an average price of $75 would need $4.828 billion.
- If the price moves to $200 due to continued pressure, the required funds double to $12.874 billion for covering the same short interest.
- Price Movement and Halts:
Potential for Exponential Price Increase
- Feedback Loop: As the price increases, more short sellers are forced to cover, leading to further price increases. This feedback loop can cause exponential growth in the stock price.
- Limitations of LULD: If the LULD mechanism fails to contain the volatility, the price can move rapidly, triggering more short covering and buy pressure.
Conclusion
The failure of the LULD mechanism during periods of extreme volatility, driven by high-frequency trading and market manipulation, can lead to a significant short squeeze. The mathematical implications show how rapid price increases and forced short covering can create a feedback loop, potentially leading to a MOASS. Understanding these dynamics helps investors anticipate potential market movements and the limitations of volatility contols.Sources:
Key Factors Influencing GME's Stock Price
- Fundamental Analysis
- Earnings Reports: GME's quarterly earnings can significantly impact the stock price. The next earnings report on June 5, 2024, is crucial. Strong financial performance or strategic announcements can boost investor confidence.
- Revenue and Profitability: GME has reported $5.27 billion in revenue over the past 12 months with a net income of $6.70 million. Monitoring these indicators is essential for long-term valuation.
- Debt Levels: ### Debt-to-Equity Ratio Calculation
- Short-term debt: $11 million
- Long-term debt: $23.6 million
- Total Debt: $34.6 million
- Total Equity: $1,267.2 million
Debt-to-Equity Ratio = Total Debt / Total Equity Debt-to-Equity Ratio = 34.6 million / 1,267.2 million Debt-to-Equity Ratio = 0.027
Summary
- Total Debt: $34.6 million
- Total Equity: $1,267.2 million
- Debt-to-Equity Ratio: 0.027
Explanation
The debt-to-equity ratio decreased from 0.045 to 0.027 due to GameStop's efforts to reduce its debt while maintaining its equity base. This lower ratio indicates a stronger equity position and less reliance on debt.Current Creditors
GameStop's current debt includes a French term loan, part of their short-term and long-term debt obligations.- Technical Analysis
- Support and Resistance Levels: Key support levels are around $20, while resistance levels are between $50 and $60. Breaking through these levels can indicate potential price movements.
- Volume: High trading volumes can signal strong investor interest. Monitor volume spikes for potential price actions.
- Patterns: Watch for technical patterns like the descending triangle, which is typically bearish. However, a breakout above resistance could indicate a bullish reversal.
Adjusted Float and Short Interest
Outstanding Shares: 306.19 million Minus DRS: 75.5 million Minus Institutional Holdings: Approximately 87.17 million Minus Insider Holdings: Approximately 61.46 million + Ryan Cohen's Holdings (36.847 million)Adjusted Float Calculation: 306.19 million (Outstanding Shares) - 75.5 million (DRS) - 87.17 million (Institutional Holdings) - (61.46 million + 36.847 million) (Insider Holdings including Cohen's) = 45.213 million
Short Interest Percentage: (64.37 million / 45.213 million) * 100 ≈ 142.3%
Potential Use of Warrants and Preferred Stock
Issuing Warrants: - Concept: GameStop could issue warrants to shareholders as a dividend, e.g., 1 warrant per 7 shares owned. - Benefit: This incentivizes shareholders and provides potential to buy shares at a favorable price, creating scarcity in common stock.Preferred Shares: - Concept: Issuing preferred shares can offer fixed dividends and have priority over common shares in liquidation. - Impact: Preferred shares require board approval and SEC filings, potentially affecting the market and short sellers by reducing the float of common shares.
Impact of 45 Million New Shares
Response to the Theory on GME's Recent S-3 Filing:
What’s Happening:
- S-3 Filing History:
- GameStop filed a Form S-3 to potentially issue up to 1 billion shares, with 300 million currently outstanding. This is similar to a move they made in December 2020 before the January 2021 short squeeze. The S-3 allows GameStop to register securities quickly and respond swiftly to market conditions.
- Source: www.investing.com
Why This Matters:
- Two Possible Outcomes for Shorts:
- Accept the Offer: Shorts could buy the offered shares, admitting their positions and potentially converting to longs.
- Decline the Offer: If shorts don’t accept, it exposes the extent of their naked short positions, revealing potential fraud.
Strategic Implications:
- Regulator Signal:
- This filing signals to the SEC that GameStop is willing to resolve the situation constructively, placing the onus on shorts to reveal their positions. This strategic move puts pressure on shorts and highlights the transparency and compliance of GameStop’s management.
Relevant Data and Comparisons:
- Historical Context and Data:
- December 2020 Example: Before the January 2021 short squeeze, GameStop made a similar filing. The shorts didn’t cover, leading to a massive price surge. For instance, the stock price skyrocketed from around $20 to an intraday high of $483 on January 28, 2021.
- Current Short Interest: As of May 2024, GME’s short interest remains high, with 64,373,343 shares short, representing 20.55% of the float. This high short interest indicates a significant potential for another short squeeze if the shorts are forced to cover.
- Sources: www.tradingview.com, www.investing.com
- Market Reactions and Patterns:
- Volume and Price Data: Recent high trading volumes and price surges, such as GME’s rise to $80 in pre-market trading, suggest strong market reactions to strategic filings and movements. This pattern mirrors past events and indicates potential future volatility.
- Source: www.tradingview.com
Comparisons to Other Companies:
- Tesla (TSLA):
- Similar Scenario: Tesla faced significant short interest and skepticism but managed to drive its stock price up through strong financial performance and strategic moves. Retail investor support played a crucial role, forcing shorts to cover and leading to a massive short squeeze. For instance, Tesla's stock price increased from around $50 in 2019 to over $800 in 2021.
- Result: Tesla's market cap increased substantially, showcasing the power of strategic corporate actions combined with retail investor momentum.
- Volkswagen (VW) 2008:
- Historical Short Squeeze: Volkswagen became the world’s most valuable company briefly in 2008 during a short squeeze when Porsche revealed it had a majority stake in VW. This forced short sellers to cover their positions at significantly higher prices, causing the stock price to soar from around €210 to over €1,000 within a few days.
- Impact: The stock price soared, illustrating the potential power of strategic moves and market reactions, similar to what could happen with GameStop if shorts are forced to cover.
Conclusion:
This isn’t about diluting shares but offering shorts a way out and proving to regulators that GameStop is handling this responsibly. Whether shorts accept or decline, their actions will reveal the extent of their positions, potentially leading to a significant market impact.Stay strong, apes! 🚀🦍💎🙌
Sources: - MarketBeat: www.marketbeat.com - Yahoo Finance: uk.finance.yahoo.com - TradingView: www.tradingview.com - Investing.com: www.investing.com
GameStop recently authorized the issuance of up to 45 million new shares. Here's the potential impact on the stock and short interest:
- Dilution Effect:
- Outstanding Shares Increase: The total outstanding shares would increase from 306.19 million to 351.19 million if all 45 million shares are issued.
- Adjusted Float Calculation: ``` 351.19 million (New Outstanding Shares)
- 75.5 million (DRS)
- 87.17 million (Institutional Holdings)
- (61.46 million + 36.847 million) (Insider Holdings including Cohen's) = 90.213 million ```
- Revised Short Interest Percentage: (64.37 million / 90.213 million) * 100 ≈ 71.37%
Upcoming Key Dates
- May 24, 2024: FINRA CAT Reporting - Ensuring all material inconsistencies are resolved.
- May 31, 2024: FINRA CAT Full CAIS Compliance Go-Live - Enhancing market transparency.
- June 5, 2024: GME Q1 2024 Earnings Report - Potential for strategic announcements.
- June 21, 2024: LEAPS expiration date - Options with significant open interest can create volatility as market makers hedge their positions.
- September 5, 2024: GME Q2 2024 Earnings Report.
- December 5, 2024: GME Q3 2024 Earnings Report.
- January 2, 2025: SEC Rule Implementation - Increased transparency in short selling.
Recent Technical Analysis Insights
Support and Resistance Levels: - Support: Key support levels for GME appear around $20. These levels provide a base where the stock has historically found buying interest. - Resistance: Significant resistance levels are around $50-$60. Breaking through these levels could indicate further upward momentum.Volume Trends: - High trading volumes during the January 2021 short squeeze indicate strong market interest. Monitoring volume can help gauge the strength of price movements.
Technical Patterns: - Descending Triangle: The recent chart shows a descending triangle pattern, which is typically bearish. However, a breakout above the resistance line could signal a reversal and potential price increase.
Projected Movements
Short Squeeze Potential: - High Short Interest: With 64.37 million shares shorted, any significant buying pressure could trigger a short squeeze, driving the price up dramatically.Upcoming Catalysts: - Earnings Report on June 5, 2024: Positive earnings or strategic announcements could boost investor confidence and drive the stock price higher. - Regulatory Deadlines on May 24 and May 31, 2024: Increased transparency and regulatory compliance could impact market dynamics. Nice one, but you forgot one hype date:
investor.gamestop.com
2024 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (“annual meeting”) on Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 10:00 a.m., CDT
LEAPS and Other MOASS Theories
LEAPS (Long-Term Equity Anticipation Securities): - Concept: LEAPS are options with expiration dates longer than one year. They can be used by investors to gain leveraged exposure to GME's price movements over a longer period. - Impact: If retail investors continue to buy LEAPS, it can create significant upward pressure on the stock price as market makers hedge their positions by buying the underlying stock.Preferred Shares and Warrants: - Issuance of Preferred Shares or Warrants: GME could issue preferred shares or warrants to shareholders, creating additional buying pressure as these instruments are exercised.
Naked Short Selling and Regulatory Compliance: - May 24, 2024: Deadline for resolving all outstanding material inconsistencies for FINRA CAT reporting, increasing market transparency and potentially impacting short selling practices. - January 2, 2025: Implementation of new SEC rules, which could further enhance market transparency and impact short interest reporting.
New Data: Ryan Cohen's Insider Transactions
Insider Transactions: - Ryan Cohen: Recent Form 4 from 2023 filing shows Cohen acquired 253,204 shares at $22.2485 and 190,638 shares at $22.9075. Total shares beneficially owned after transactions are 36,657,204 and 36,847,842 respectively.Conclusion
While predicting GME's exact price movements is challenging, several factors suggest potential for upward movement: - High Short Interest: Potential for a short squeeze. - Technical Indicators: Key support levels and potential breakout patterns. - Market Sentiment: Positive retail investor activity and upcoming catalysts. - LEAPS and Other MOASS Theories: Additional strategies like LEAPS and preferred shares could contribute to upward pressure.Verified Sources
- Fintel: fintel.io
- MarketBeat: marketbeat.com
- Stock Analysis: stockanalysis.com
- FINRA: finra.org
- SEC: sec.gov
Theoretical MOASS (Mother of All Short Squeezes) and Potential Prices for GME
Understanding the potential outcomes of a MOASS for GameStop (GME) involves several key factors and calculations. Here, we'll break down some of the critical components that could influence the theoretical prices during a MOASS.Key Factors
- Short Interest and Float: The higher the short interest relative to the float, the more pressure on short sellers to cover their positions, potentially driving the price up.
- Buy-In Pressure: Retail investors holding and buying more shares can create scarcity, driving the price higher as shorts scramble to cover.
- Market Dynamics and Liquidity: As the price rises, liquidity becomes a significant factor. Higher prices may lead to increased volatility and rapid price swings.
Short Interest and Float Calculation
Using the current data:Outstanding Shares: 306.19 million Minus DRS: 75.5 million Minus Institutional Holdings: Approximately 87.17 million Minus Insider Holdings: Approximately 61.46 million + Ryan Cohen's Holdings (36.847 million)
Adjusted Float Calculation: 306.19 million (Outstanding Shares) - 75.5 million (DRS) - 87.17 million (Institutional Holdings) - (61.46 million + 36.847 million) (Insider Holdings including Cohen's) = 45.213 million
Short Interest: 64.37 million shares
Theoretical MOASS Price Calculation
The theoretical price during a MOASS can vary widely based on the demand for shares and the willingness of retail investors to hold their positions. Here are a few scenarios to consider:Scenario 1: Moderate Short Covering
- Assumption: Shorts begin covering at higher prices but still face resistance from retail holders.
- Estimated Price Range: $200 to $1,000 per share
Scenario 2: High Short Covering Pressure
- Assumption: Increased buying pressure as shorts are forced to cover more aggressively.
- Estimated Price Range: $1,000 to $5,000 per share
Scenario 3: Extreme MOASS Scenario
- Assumption: Significant short covering with extremely limited float due to strong retail holding.
- Estimated Price Range: $5,000 to $50,000+ per share
Important Considerations
- Regulatory Impact: Changes in regulations, such as those from the SEC or FINRA, could impact the dynamics of short selling and buying pressure.
- Market Sentiment: Market sentiment and external factors like news, earnings reports, and strategic announcements can significantly impact the stock price.
- Psychological Factors: The psychological impact on both retail investors and institutional players can lead to irrational price movements, either upwards or downwards.
Conclusion
Predicting the exact price during a MOASS is challenging due to the many variables involved. However, understanding the key factors and potential scenarios can provide a framework for what might happen. Stay informed, and always be cautious with your investments.Stay strong, apes! TO THE MOON! 🚀🦍💎🙌
2024.05.21 22:07 wfhbaddie May 21 2024
- Remote Customer Service Advisor
Starting Pay Rate is $17.31/Hour
Full time schedules between the hours of 7am – 12am CST.
As Customer Service Advisor, the customer service you will be providing is via phone and will help customers with a variety of questions. Some common questions that you could receive from your customers are:
- My delivery is late. Can you help?
- My delivery arrived damaged. What can I do?
- When will I see a charge for my purchase?
- Live in one of the following states AL, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY
- Health Information Specialist I
This is an entry level position responsible for processing all release of information (ROI), specifically medical record requests, in a timely and efficient manner ensuring accuracy and providing customers with the highest quality product and customer service.
$15.00 - $18.00
3.Associate - Claims Support
https://careers-carecentrix.icims.com/jobs/15768/job?mobile=false&width=1370&height=500&bga=true&needsRedirect=false&jan1offset=-360&jun1offset=-300
This position receives/responds to provider inquiries on claim issues. Researches information by reviewing plan, eligibility, and authorizations to determine appropriate resolution. Works with CSC or RCM to identify areas of opportunity and recommend solutions. Completes special assignments and analyzes provider requests. Assists other departments and interacts directly with providers
- High School Diploma or the equivalent required
https://workforcenow.adp.com/mascsdefault/mdf/recruitment/recruitment.html?cid=6e37dac1-ff90-406c-a8a5-4bafdb684f37&ccId=19000101_000001&jobId=484202&source=IN&lang=en_US&ittk=A0V0UYFGWX
Training starts: June 6, 2024
Training Hours: 9:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. EST
Production Hours: Monday – Friday 9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m. EST
Schedule: Based on business need between 9a-8p EST M-F
NO WEEKENDS!
Location: Work at Home in the following 20 states:
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, & Wisconsin.
5.CUSTOMER SERVICE REP-PART TIME POSITION
https://wsgc.applicantstack.com/x/detail/a2qgk7jaro5b
Applicants must reside from: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, or Wisconsin
- 40% Discount on most merchandise!
- Fun contests / rewards and recognition programs
- Paid Training from the comfort of your home
- Internal promotional opportunities. Based on position requirements and tenure, this can occur within the first 60 days if interested
- Pay = $15.00/hr \compensation may differ due to individual state wage requirements**
- Address customer questions and concerns regarding product and delivery information
- Provide product information, review alternative solutions if an item is out of stock and place orders for the customer.
- High School diploma or GED
- 1 – 2 years previous customer service experience
- Ability to complete mandatory paid training for 4 weeks - 100% attendance is required
- Confirm that you have the equipment requirements listed below. This will be asked throughout the interview process and could affect employment status if not met
In order to work from home, our agents must have their own full-size or all-in-one desktop personal computer, or a traditional laptop personal computer that meets the minimum specifications listed in the sections below.
Devices not acceptable:
Tablet-based/convertible personal computers (i.e. – Microsoft Surface, Surface Book), Chromebooks, Steam Decks and mobile phones (unless needed for two-factor authentication) are not acceptable.Operating Systems:
- Windows 10 Home, Windows 10 Pro, or Windows 10 Pro for Workstations
- Windows 11 Home, Windows 11 Pro, or Windows 11 Pro for Workstations
- Mac IOS 12 or newer
- Important Facts: MUST HAVE THESE FOR CONSIDERATION
- Ability to complete mandatory paid training for 4 weeks - 100% attendance is required
- Confirm that you have the equipment requirements listed below. This will be asked throughout the interview process and could affect employment status if not met
2024.05.21 21:59 dink87 Heat pump/furnace install in Seattle - price reasonable or crazy?
Hi,
I have a 20 year old furnace in Seattle and a newer Heat pump (Bryant). I'm trying to figure out if this quote is good at all. They are allegedly giving me a discount because of their May discount PLUS a discount if I commit TODAY (I told him upfront this is so salesy). The price below includes all the discounts.
Is the hyperheat any good? My house is about 3000 sqft but our 2nd floor gets roasted by the sun as its West Facing and covered with windows.
Total cost with federal rebate: $19,096
Mitsubishi PVFY AHU w/ Hyper Heat 48k BTU LEVEL 2 1.0 $25,594.12 $25,594.12
System: Mitsubishi Heat Pump System
Model# PVFY-P48NAMU-E1/ MXZSM48NAMHZ
Stage(s): InverteVariable Speed Blower
Tonage/BTU: 4/48,000
SEEHSPF: 16.5/11
12 year Workmanship Warranty
12 year Labor Warranty
12 year Parts Warranty from manufacturer
Condensate Pump (if applicable)
Drain piping
Lineset piping
Equipment pad
Communication Thermostat
Part 1: Removing Existing System
-Recover existing refrigerant if applicable
-Disconnect system power
-Disassemble Air HandleFurnace and Condensing unit
Part 2: Setting New Units
-Install new equipment pad
-Install new Condensing Unit -Install Air Handle Furnace
-Modify return air ductwork
-Modify supply air ductwork
Part 3: Piping/ Electrical -Install new lineset *Fabricate flare connections (torque to manufacture spec) *Pressure test system (350 PSI brazed systems, 650 PSI flared systems) Bring system into deep vacuum
(free from moisture) (350 microns)
-Mount new disconnect and system electrical whip
-Rewire Thermostat/Mount thermostat
Part 4: System Start Up
*Perform a proper refrigerant system charge by measuring sub-cooling
-Verify system safety controls
-Configure thermostat settings
-Complete an entire system start up report -Take system photos
-Record information to register for warranty
-Clean up entire work area
submitted by dink87 to hvacadvice [link] [comments]
I have a 20 year old furnace in Seattle and a newer Heat pump (Bryant). I'm trying to figure out if this quote is good at all. They are allegedly giving me a discount because of their May discount PLUS a discount if I commit TODAY (I told him upfront this is so salesy). The price below includes all the discounts.
Is the hyperheat any good? My house is about 3000 sqft but our 2nd floor gets roasted by the sun as its West Facing and covered with windows.
Total cost with federal rebate: $19,096
Mitsubishi PVFY AHU w/ Hyper Heat 48k BTU LEVEL 2 1.0 $25,594.12 $25,594.12
System: Mitsubishi Heat Pump System
Model# PVFY-P48NAMU-E1/ MXZSM48NAMHZ
Stage(s): InverteVariable Speed Blower
Tonage/BTU: 4/48,000
SEEHSPF: 16.5/11
12 year Workmanship Warranty
12 year Labor Warranty
12 year Parts Warranty from manufacturer
Condensate Pump (if applicable)
Drain piping
Lineset piping
Equipment pad
Communication Thermostat
Part 1: Removing Existing System
-Recover existing refrigerant if applicable
-Disconnect system power
-Disassemble Air HandleFurnace and Condensing unit
Part 2: Setting New Units
-Install new equipment pad
-Install new Condensing Unit -Install Air Handle Furnace
-Modify return air ductwork
-Modify supply air ductwork
Part 3: Piping/ Electrical -Install new lineset *Fabricate flare connections (torque to manufacture spec) *Pressure test system (350 PSI brazed systems, 650 PSI flared systems) Bring system into deep vacuum
(free from moisture) (350 microns)
-Mount new disconnect and system electrical whip
-Rewire Thermostat/Mount thermostat
Part 4: System Start Up
*Perform a proper refrigerant system charge by measuring sub-cooling
-Verify system safety controls
-Configure thermostat settings
-Complete an entire system start up report -Take system photos
-Record information to register for warranty
-Clean up entire work area
2024.05.21 21:49 hyperblu7 We just saved 60% or more on car insurance by leaving Geico! 🤨
 | Recent tornado/hail damage was the reason we thought our premiums ($130/mo) doubled... Nope! Just more corporate robbery! submitted by hyperblu7 to mildlyinfuriating [link] [comments] |
2024.05.21 21:49 pilotslashCPA Write-Up: Zero to CFII in 13 months, Part 61, $52K
Hi all! After a crazy, but incredibly fun and rewarding year earning my pilot certs, I wanted to make a write-up of my experience in hopes that it’ll be helpful for any other aspiring or current pilots. To summarize, I went from zero aviation experience to CFII in 13 months, Part 61, paying as I go and on the pretty cheap side. I do want to emphasize that I was ~incredibly~ lucky and had some very generous people who helped me out, and I could not have done this as efficiently and cheaply if it weren’t for them. I’m going to list all my takeaways below, but I think my biggest piece of advice is to network as much as you can because there are some amazing, generous people in this community that want to see us all succeed.
Background:
For context, I’m in my mid to late twenties and have been in the workforce for about 5 years. Through a combination of factors I decided to make a career switch to professional pilot but was hesitant because I did not want to take on debt. I have a family member who is an airline pilot who helped me devise a plan. I moved home and kept working my job remotely so I was able to put all my paychecks towards flying.
Private Pilot – 3 months, 75 hours TT, $12k
I did my private in a Piper Archer owned by my local FBO. The owner allowed my family member to be my instructor and gave me a small discount for pre-paying hours. We flew almost daily. I also took ground school at another local FBO in-person, and that was much more helpful than having to learn everything on my own because I was brand new to aviation. I took the private written exam as soon as my ground school concluded which was also the week of my checkride (bad idea in hindsight, but it worked out).
I solo’d around 25 hours and took my checkride with about 60 hours in the Archer (15 additional hours were in a friend’s airplane). The checkride was challenging, but straightforward and I was well prepared. The DPE said good things about me afterward and I was officially a private pilot! I’d be happy to answer questions or do a writeup in a separate post on any of my checkrides but for the sake of brevity I’ll skip that for now.
~Key takeaways from private:~
Fly as often as possible and make sure your instructor is aligned with that. Also stay on top of ground school. Also, don’t rush to take the checkride before you’re ready, it’s okay to have a lot of practice first. Lastly, I know DPE availability is a big issue in lots of areas and can cause people to have to wait on a checkride even though they’ve been ready for months. In my experience, if you try hard enough and call around, you will find someone. However, it might mean you have to travel a little bit which I know is not possible for everyone.
Instrument – 2 months, 150 hours TT, $14k
I was feeling a little fatigued after private so I was slow to start studying for instrument. I started by doing a lot of flying for fun, mainly flying in the Archer by myself on little cross countries to check off some of the requirements (in hindsight I should have found someone to split time with).
I did my instrument at a flight school in one of the adjacent states. This particular school specializes in accelerated programs, but they do not have a formalized instrument course. I went in-person and spoke with the director of flight operations to discuss my options. Since I had to take PTO to do this, the goal was to finish my instrument in one week with the checkride at the end. I paid a flat rate for the airplane and instructor time. I also stayed over there during that week so I had to pay for housing as well.
Before I went over there, I did some prep in the Archer that I did my private in and took the written exam (Sheppard air). I also purchased Sporty’s Instrument course and used that to prep and for the endorsement needed to take the written. The week I spent at the flight school was honestly a blast, and I was able to take my checkride on day 7 with 20 hours in the plane and about 4 hours of sim time. Again, happy to discuss the checkride in the comments or another post.
~Key takeaways from instrument:~
TAKE THE IRA, FII, AND IGI EXAMS AT THE SAME TIME. You only have to purchase the IRA Sheppard course and can take all 3 exams back to back. Also, again stay on top of ground school because instrument flying requires a lot of technical knowledge. But it honestly is really fun!
Commercial – 3 months, 263 hours TT, $8k
The biggest challenge for commercial was time building, of course. This is where networking saved me. I made friends with another instructor who frequented my local FBO who also owns a plane. He needed the time as well so we flew together a lot and I paid for the fuel. I also had another friend at the airport who owns a plane that he doesn’t fly often and offered to let me time build in that (again, I’ve been so lucky to come across some very generous people).
I did my checkride in the Archer that I learned in with my family member signing me off, and with the same DPE who did my private. Commercial was probably the easiest one I had done so far, but it still was no joke! I will say I was amazed with how much easier things came to me by this point versus when I first started, which was a great feeling.
~Key takeaways from commercial:~
Network, network, network. Spend as much time as you can at your local FBO or flight school and make friends with everyone. Like I’ve said, there are some very generous people out there who love to help out new pilots, and I could not have made it this far without them.
Also, in retrospect, it would have been a really good idea to have done commercial from the right seat. I’ve heard of a lot of people doing that and if I had, I would have been able to knock out CFI a lot sooner and cheaper.
Multi-engine add-on – 1 week, 298 hours TT, $4.3k
Shortly after getting my CPL, I had a week of PTO and decided to knock out my multi add-on. I found a flight school with a Seminole and got ahold of their MEI, and we figured we could knock it out during that week. I contacted the DPE who did my private and commercial and we scheduled my checkride for the end of the week. This flight school was about 2 hours driving from home, and I was able to stay with friends while I was there.
This one was a little challenging because this was in January in the midwest and we were seeing a lot of low IFR days. We ended up getting weathered out the first half of the week, but luckily the Seminole was an easy transition for me and we got me trained up in 3 days, 8 hours of flying. I took the checkride as scheduled and passed (I will say I have had extremely good luck with weather for all of my checkride days so far).
Sidenote: Prior to this checkride, I also took the AGI and IGI exams and asked the DPE who did my multi checkride to sign off on the ground instructor certificate at the same time. I did this because I’ve heard it helps when applying to CFI jobs (shows a little extra effort) and it was easier to do it this way versus having a FSDO issue the cert. Cost me $50 to the DPE.
~Key takeaways from multi:~
Do your research to find an airplane at a good rate. I paid $395 per hour which included the instructor, but I’ve seen some schools charging a lot more. Also, I looked into schools with accelerated courses that you pay as a package, and based on my experience I would not recommend because I was able to do it much cheaper my way.
My instructor did a good job of making sure I knew all the aircraft systems well enough to teach them in case I go for my MEI (which I would like to do soon). Since the MEL is light on material, I highly recommend this. Also, when I was doing research I was told to look for a Seminole or DA-42 because they’re easy trainers, which I would agree with based on my limited experience.
CFI – 1 month (on top of all my experience thus far), 316 hours TT, $5k
This was the scariest one for me. I had heard all along that CFI is the hardest and longest checkride and for the most part I would agree. I originally was planning on going to a school with an accelerated program for this, but after asking around I decided to do it on my own (with my family member signing me off).
This one was heavy on ground school. I got some lesson plans from various people as I heard that’s what everyone has prepared for the checkride, but I hardly ended up using them. I also had a friend send me PowerPoints he made for the technical subject areas. I edited them/made them my own and these are what I ended up using for the checkride along with a couple props.
As far as studying goes, the thing I found most helpful was watching random YouTube videos before bed every night. Although it was all review, I picked up a lot of tidbits that weren’t quite drilled into my brain as I still feel new to aviation overall. As the DPE described it, to be a good CFI you basically need to be a nerd about everything aviation and that’s what I tried to do. I would guess that I studied a few hours a day for a month and a half or so. As for the flying part, I had a little bit of right seat experience prior to buckling down for CFI (probably under 5 hours), so I’d guess it took me about 5 more hours to feel comfortable in the right seat. I took the checkride with the same DPE who did my private, commercial, and multi and passed! The checkride was 8 hours total so definitely a long day. As we were debriefing, I went ahead and scheduled CFII with him as well.
~Key takeaways from CFI:~
Start nerding out now (if you aren’t already). Keep a running collection of links and videos that explain concepts well or teach you something interesting, they will be useful for the checkride. Also, don’t buy lesson plans. As my DPE put it, there are really only like 5 lesson plans for any given topic and we all steal them from each other, so no need to reinvent the wheel or pay for them if someone else can give them to you. I’d also recommend really getting to know the PTS, because it lays out very clearly what you are required to do on the checkride (for example you know you’re going to need to teach runway incursions so it’s a good opportunity to be really prepared). I’m sure my last point is most applicable to those doing CFI on their own since you won’t have a school telling you exactly what to expect.
CFII – 1 month, 368 hours TT, $1.3k
CFII was possibly the easiest checkride to prepare for. I did this one in a friend’s airplane – a Mooney with a G750 and GFC 500 autopilot. It probably took about 10 hours of flying (I already have lots of time in this plane) to be ready. For studying, I reviewed Pilot Cafe, YouTube videos, and obtained some lesson plans from a friend. I did not use PowerPoints or anything for this one. I also had already completed the written exam back when I did my instrument rating. I’m not sure what else to say about this one, but I did it with the same DPE again and passed. It feels amazing to be done with checkrides for a while!
~Key takeaways from CFII:~
Select an airplane with a good autopilot. This made the flying portion of the checkride super easy. For the oral, I highly recommend working with instructors who send students for a lot of instrument checkrides. I feel like there are so many very specific questions that DPEs like to ask on instrument/CFII checkrides, so it helps if you have someone who knows what those questions are going to be. Also, FlightInsight on YouTube and Boldmethod were my favorite resources for this one. Lastly, make sure you know your avionics and autopilot really well, including reading and being able to teach all of the limitations that are in the user manuals.
Notes regarding cost:
I did a decent job of tracking all my expenses throughout this process. I noted in the title that the total cost to me was about $50k, which consists of the ~$45k that I discussed above plus some additional expenses. I also did my commercial ASES rating at Jack Brown’s seaplane base which cost me about $2.5K total (of course this was just for fun). The remaining amount consists of things like buying a headset, books, random accessories, and even some things I called “unnecessary expenses”. I temporarily paid for a membership at a flight school that I barely ended up using, so I put that in that category. While I did everything pretty cheap, I was definitely not perfect!
Here is a further breakdown of my expenses:
Airplane rentals/fuel - $36.9k
Instructor fees - $2.5k (bear in mind I got a lot of free instruction from friends & family)
Ground school - $1.3k (includes actual ground school and books)
Flight accessories - $1.2k
Written exam fees - $1.2k (8 exams total)
DPE fees - $5.8k (7 checkrides; this includes seaplane)
Medical fees - $290
Housing - $900
Misc/unnecessary expenses - $1.2k
Total: $51.7k
Overall Takeaways:
- For those doing Part 61/pay as you go, I highly recommend finding an independent instructor with a flexible schedule. This was key for me because I had a work schedule to work around.
- NETWORKING/MAKING FRIENDS. Go to every fly-in you can, always stop into the FBO to say hi to people, etc. etc. Having friends in aviation was monumentally helpful for me and saved me SO much money. Cannot stress this enough!
- If you are on a timeline, make sure you set specific milestones and when you are going to hit them. Make sure your instructor is on board too.
- Do your research! Reddit has been a fantastic resource for me throughout this process. Talk to people who have achieved the things you want to achieve. I really cannot thank you all enough for all your help and insights on your experiences!
Again, I am more than happy to answer any and all questions. I also apologize if anything is jumbled or confusing; this took a long time to write and I’m sure I missed things. I will also disclaim that while I did a good job of tracking all my expenses, I was not perfect and YMMV for sure. I just hope this gave a somewhat helpful picture for those hoping to do something similar to what I did.
As for next steps, I am aiming for the airlines one of these days! I have a couple interviews at flight schools coming up so I am planning to quit my job and finally start flying full-time soon. I want to do my MEI sometime soon as well but I haven’t figured out how I’m going to pay for the PIC time yet.
I also want to say that I absolutely love general aviation and hope to always be involved in it. I have made so many friends, had some incredible experiences, and learned way more than I could have ever imagined in the past year. For anyone thinking about flying, hopefully this is your sign to just do it! Feel free to comment with questions!
submitted by pilotslashCPA to flying [link] [comments]
Background:
For context, I’m in my mid to late twenties and have been in the workforce for about 5 years. Through a combination of factors I decided to make a career switch to professional pilot but was hesitant because I did not want to take on debt. I have a family member who is an airline pilot who helped me devise a plan. I moved home and kept working my job remotely so I was able to put all my paychecks towards flying.
Private Pilot – 3 months, 75 hours TT, $12k
I did my private in a Piper Archer owned by my local FBO. The owner allowed my family member to be my instructor and gave me a small discount for pre-paying hours. We flew almost daily. I also took ground school at another local FBO in-person, and that was much more helpful than having to learn everything on my own because I was brand new to aviation. I took the private written exam as soon as my ground school concluded which was also the week of my checkride (bad idea in hindsight, but it worked out).
I solo’d around 25 hours and took my checkride with about 60 hours in the Archer (15 additional hours were in a friend’s airplane). The checkride was challenging, but straightforward and I was well prepared. The DPE said good things about me afterward and I was officially a private pilot! I’d be happy to answer questions or do a writeup in a separate post on any of my checkrides but for the sake of brevity I’ll skip that for now.
~Key takeaways from private:~
Fly as often as possible and make sure your instructor is aligned with that. Also stay on top of ground school. Also, don’t rush to take the checkride before you’re ready, it’s okay to have a lot of practice first. Lastly, I know DPE availability is a big issue in lots of areas and can cause people to have to wait on a checkride even though they’ve been ready for months. In my experience, if you try hard enough and call around, you will find someone. However, it might mean you have to travel a little bit which I know is not possible for everyone.
Instrument – 2 months, 150 hours TT, $14k
I was feeling a little fatigued after private so I was slow to start studying for instrument. I started by doing a lot of flying for fun, mainly flying in the Archer by myself on little cross countries to check off some of the requirements (in hindsight I should have found someone to split time with).
I did my instrument at a flight school in one of the adjacent states. This particular school specializes in accelerated programs, but they do not have a formalized instrument course. I went in-person and spoke with the director of flight operations to discuss my options. Since I had to take PTO to do this, the goal was to finish my instrument in one week with the checkride at the end. I paid a flat rate for the airplane and instructor time. I also stayed over there during that week so I had to pay for housing as well.
Before I went over there, I did some prep in the Archer that I did my private in and took the written exam (Sheppard air). I also purchased Sporty’s Instrument course and used that to prep and for the endorsement needed to take the written. The week I spent at the flight school was honestly a blast, and I was able to take my checkride on day 7 with 20 hours in the plane and about 4 hours of sim time. Again, happy to discuss the checkride in the comments or another post.
~Key takeaways from instrument:~
TAKE THE IRA, FII, AND IGI EXAMS AT THE SAME TIME. You only have to purchase the IRA Sheppard course and can take all 3 exams back to back. Also, again stay on top of ground school because instrument flying requires a lot of technical knowledge. But it honestly is really fun!
Commercial – 3 months, 263 hours TT, $8k
The biggest challenge for commercial was time building, of course. This is where networking saved me. I made friends with another instructor who frequented my local FBO who also owns a plane. He needed the time as well so we flew together a lot and I paid for the fuel. I also had another friend at the airport who owns a plane that he doesn’t fly often and offered to let me time build in that (again, I’ve been so lucky to come across some very generous people).
I did my checkride in the Archer that I learned in with my family member signing me off, and with the same DPE who did my private. Commercial was probably the easiest one I had done so far, but it still was no joke! I will say I was amazed with how much easier things came to me by this point versus when I first started, which was a great feeling.
~Key takeaways from commercial:~
Network, network, network. Spend as much time as you can at your local FBO or flight school and make friends with everyone. Like I’ve said, there are some very generous people out there who love to help out new pilots, and I could not have made it this far without them.
Also, in retrospect, it would have been a really good idea to have done commercial from the right seat. I’ve heard of a lot of people doing that and if I had, I would have been able to knock out CFI a lot sooner and cheaper.
Multi-engine add-on – 1 week, 298 hours TT, $4.3k
Shortly after getting my CPL, I had a week of PTO and decided to knock out my multi add-on. I found a flight school with a Seminole and got ahold of their MEI, and we figured we could knock it out during that week. I contacted the DPE who did my private and commercial and we scheduled my checkride for the end of the week. This flight school was about 2 hours driving from home, and I was able to stay with friends while I was there.
This one was a little challenging because this was in January in the midwest and we were seeing a lot of low IFR days. We ended up getting weathered out the first half of the week, but luckily the Seminole was an easy transition for me and we got me trained up in 3 days, 8 hours of flying. I took the checkride as scheduled and passed (I will say I have had extremely good luck with weather for all of my checkride days so far).
Sidenote: Prior to this checkride, I also took the AGI and IGI exams and asked the DPE who did my multi checkride to sign off on the ground instructor certificate at the same time. I did this because I’ve heard it helps when applying to CFI jobs (shows a little extra effort) and it was easier to do it this way versus having a FSDO issue the cert. Cost me $50 to the DPE.
~Key takeaways from multi:~
Do your research to find an airplane at a good rate. I paid $395 per hour which included the instructor, but I’ve seen some schools charging a lot more. Also, I looked into schools with accelerated courses that you pay as a package, and based on my experience I would not recommend because I was able to do it much cheaper my way.
My instructor did a good job of making sure I knew all the aircraft systems well enough to teach them in case I go for my MEI (which I would like to do soon). Since the MEL is light on material, I highly recommend this. Also, when I was doing research I was told to look for a Seminole or DA-42 because they’re easy trainers, which I would agree with based on my limited experience.
CFI – 1 month (on top of all my experience thus far), 316 hours TT, $5k
This was the scariest one for me. I had heard all along that CFI is the hardest and longest checkride and for the most part I would agree. I originally was planning on going to a school with an accelerated program for this, but after asking around I decided to do it on my own (with my family member signing me off).
This one was heavy on ground school. I got some lesson plans from various people as I heard that’s what everyone has prepared for the checkride, but I hardly ended up using them. I also had a friend send me PowerPoints he made for the technical subject areas. I edited them/made them my own and these are what I ended up using for the checkride along with a couple props.
As far as studying goes, the thing I found most helpful was watching random YouTube videos before bed every night. Although it was all review, I picked up a lot of tidbits that weren’t quite drilled into my brain as I still feel new to aviation overall. As the DPE described it, to be a good CFI you basically need to be a nerd about everything aviation and that’s what I tried to do. I would guess that I studied a few hours a day for a month and a half or so. As for the flying part, I had a little bit of right seat experience prior to buckling down for CFI (probably under 5 hours), so I’d guess it took me about 5 more hours to feel comfortable in the right seat. I took the checkride with the same DPE who did my private, commercial, and multi and passed! The checkride was 8 hours total so definitely a long day. As we were debriefing, I went ahead and scheduled CFII with him as well.
~Key takeaways from CFI:~
Start nerding out now (if you aren’t already). Keep a running collection of links and videos that explain concepts well or teach you something interesting, they will be useful for the checkride. Also, don’t buy lesson plans. As my DPE put it, there are really only like 5 lesson plans for any given topic and we all steal them from each other, so no need to reinvent the wheel or pay for them if someone else can give them to you. I’d also recommend really getting to know the PTS, because it lays out very clearly what you are required to do on the checkride (for example you know you’re going to need to teach runway incursions so it’s a good opportunity to be really prepared). I’m sure my last point is most applicable to those doing CFI on their own since you won’t have a school telling you exactly what to expect.
CFII – 1 month, 368 hours TT, $1.3k
CFII was possibly the easiest checkride to prepare for. I did this one in a friend’s airplane – a Mooney with a G750 and GFC 500 autopilot. It probably took about 10 hours of flying (I already have lots of time in this plane) to be ready. For studying, I reviewed Pilot Cafe, YouTube videos, and obtained some lesson plans from a friend. I did not use PowerPoints or anything for this one. I also had already completed the written exam back when I did my instrument rating. I’m not sure what else to say about this one, but I did it with the same DPE again and passed. It feels amazing to be done with checkrides for a while!
~Key takeaways from CFII:~
Select an airplane with a good autopilot. This made the flying portion of the checkride super easy. For the oral, I highly recommend working with instructors who send students for a lot of instrument checkrides. I feel like there are so many very specific questions that DPEs like to ask on instrument/CFII checkrides, so it helps if you have someone who knows what those questions are going to be. Also, FlightInsight on YouTube and Boldmethod were my favorite resources for this one. Lastly, make sure you know your avionics and autopilot really well, including reading and being able to teach all of the limitations that are in the user manuals.
Notes regarding cost:
I did a decent job of tracking all my expenses throughout this process. I noted in the title that the total cost to me was about $50k, which consists of the ~$45k that I discussed above plus some additional expenses. I also did my commercial ASES rating at Jack Brown’s seaplane base which cost me about $2.5K total (of course this was just for fun). The remaining amount consists of things like buying a headset, books, random accessories, and even some things I called “unnecessary expenses”. I temporarily paid for a membership at a flight school that I barely ended up using, so I put that in that category. While I did everything pretty cheap, I was definitely not perfect!
Here is a further breakdown of my expenses:
Airplane rentals/fuel - $36.9k
Instructor fees - $2.5k (bear in mind I got a lot of free instruction from friends & family)
Ground school - $1.3k (includes actual ground school and books)
Flight accessories - $1.2k
Written exam fees - $1.2k (8 exams total)
DPE fees - $5.8k (7 checkrides; this includes seaplane)
Medical fees - $290
Housing - $900
Misc/unnecessary expenses - $1.2k
Total: $51.7k
Overall Takeaways:
- For those doing Part 61/pay as you go, I highly recommend finding an independent instructor with a flexible schedule. This was key for me because I had a work schedule to work around.
- NETWORKING/MAKING FRIENDS. Go to every fly-in you can, always stop into the FBO to say hi to people, etc. etc. Having friends in aviation was monumentally helpful for me and saved me SO much money. Cannot stress this enough!
- If you are on a timeline, make sure you set specific milestones and when you are going to hit them. Make sure your instructor is on board too.
- Do your research! Reddit has been a fantastic resource for me throughout this process. Talk to people who have achieved the things you want to achieve. I really cannot thank you all enough for all your help and insights on your experiences!
Again, I am more than happy to answer any and all questions. I also apologize if anything is jumbled or confusing; this took a long time to write and I’m sure I missed things. I will also disclaim that while I did a good job of tracking all my expenses, I was not perfect and YMMV for sure. I just hope this gave a somewhat helpful picture for those hoping to do something similar to what I did.
As for next steps, I am aiming for the airlines one of these days! I have a couple interviews at flight schools coming up so I am planning to quit my job and finally start flying full-time soon. I want to do my MEI sometime soon as well but I haven’t figured out how I’m going to pay for the PIC time yet.
I also want to say that I absolutely love general aviation and hope to always be involved in it. I have made so many friends, had some incredible experiences, and learned way more than I could have ever imagined in the past year. For anyone thinking about flying, hopefully this is your sign to just do it! Feel free to comment with questions!
2024.05.21 21:29 mikakistusmoll UPDATE: Tesla model x damaged by supercharger
This is the bill with the exact part that’s being replaced. Any engineers or ex/current tesla employees that can either confirm or deny if this could’ve potentially been damaged by a faulty supercharger? Thanks!
submitted by mikakistusmoll to TeslaModelX [link] [comments]
2024.05.21 21:09 Snushy_101 Freshcaller API Guide: Explore Development
 | Did you know that integrating the Freshcaller API can boost customer satisfaction by 20% through integrations? Leveraging the power of this API opens up a world of possibilities for enhancing your customer support experience for developers and customers. With seamless integration capabilities, real-time data access, and enhanced automation features, Freshcaller API, with freshid for developers at the account level, is a game-changer in the realm of customer service solutions. Stay ahead of the competition and revolutionize your customer support operations with the Freshcaller API today. submitted by Snushy_101 to NutraVestaProVen [link] [comments] Useful Links: Key Takeaways
Understanding Freshcaller APIKey FeaturesFreshcaller API offers seamless integration with various platforms, enabling customization and automation of call processes.With the API, businesses can retrieve call recordings, track call metrics, and manage call queues efficiently. Integration CapabilitiesFreshcaller API supports integration with popular tools like Salesforce, Zendesk, and HubSpot, enhancing customer relationship management.Businesses can leverage the API to create personalized customer experiences, leading to increased satisfaction and loyalty. Security MeasuresFreshcaller API prioritizes data security by offering secure authentication protocols and encrypted communication channels.The API ensures compliance with industry standards, such as GDPR, to safeguard sensitive customer information. https://preview.redd.it/jmx2d9n0wt1d1.png?width=609&format=png&auto=webp&s=53a6684e0b209b3d8d45c4f9e61b43a2a8ba919c Start your journey to superior customer service today with Freshcaller's free trial! 📞✨ Error Handling and ResponsesHandling ErrorsFreshcaller API provides detailed error messages to assist developers in troubleshooting issues efficiently. When an error occurs, the API returns an HTTP status code along with a descriptive error message. This feature streamlines the debugging process for developers.Response StructureThe responses from Freshcaller API follow a structured format, typically in JSON or XML. This ensures that developers can easily parse and extract relevant information from the responses with access. The structured response format enhances the overall developer experience.Retry MechanismIn cases where an API request fails due to temporary issues such as network connectivity problems, Freshcaller API supports a retry mechanism. Developers can implement retry logic in their applications to resend failed requests, thereby improving the reliability of their integrations.Key Endpoints and ObjectsAPI EndpointsThe freshcaller API provides various endpoints for seamless integration. Users can access and interact with endpoints like /calls, /agents, and /numbers.Objects in the APIObjects in the freshcaller API include Call, Agent, and Number. These objects hold essential data for call management and agent operations, providing access.Key Features
Benefits of Using Objects
Integration PossibilitiesIntegrating the freshcaller API with CRM systems enables automatic call logging. Linking it with helpdesk software streamlines ticket creation based on call data.Managing Calls and MetricsCall HandlingFreshcaller API offers robust features for managing calls efficiently. Users can access, initiate, receive, and end calls programmatically through the API. By utilizing endpoints such as /calls and /agents, developers can seamlessly integrate call handling functionalities into their applications.The API provides real-time call status updates, enabling users to monitor ongoing calls dynamically. This feature enhances call management by offering insights into call durations, timestamps, and agent availability. Developers can customize call flows based on specific metrics like call volume or agent performance. Performance TrackingDevelopers can leverage the metrics exposed by the Freshcaller API to track various aspects of call performance. By accessing endpoints like /analytics and /reports, users can retrieve data on call volume, average wait times, and call resolution rates. These metrics empower organizations to analyze trends, identify bottlenecks, and optimize their call center operations effectively.
User and Team InteractionsCall RoutingFreshcaller API facilitates efficient call routing to ensure callers reach the right department or team swiftly. By utilizing customizable rules, calls are directed based on criteria like agent availability or caller language preference.Real-time CollaborationReal-time collaboration is enhanced through the API, enabling seamless communication within teams. This feature allows agents to transfer calls, share insights, and provide immediate assistance to colleagues when handling complex customer queries.Performance TrackingThe API empowers users to monitor team performance effectively by providing real-time metrics on call durations, response times, and customer satisfaction ratings. This data enables teams to identify areas for improvement and optimize their service delivery.Enhanced Customer ExperienceSummaryYou have gained a comprehensive understanding of the Freshcaller API, including error handling, key endpoints, call management, and user interactions. By mastering these aspects, you are well-equipped to leverage the API's capabilities efficiently. Remember to implement proper error handling strategies to enhance the reliability of your applications. Utilize key endpoints and objects effectively to streamline your processes and access valuable data. Manage calls and metrics adeptly to optimize your communication workflows and track essential performance indicators. Foster seamless user and team interactions to create a collaborative and productive environment using the Freshcaller API.Take action now to apply these insights in your projects and witness a significant improvement in your communication systems' efficiency and effectiveness. Explore further possibilities with the Freshcaller API to unlock its full potential for your business or development endeavors. Transform your business communication with Freshcaller's cloud-based solution. Get started for free! 🚀📞 Frequently Asked QuestionsWhat is Freshcaller API?Freshcaller API is a robust tool that allows seamless integration with your existing systems to enhance call management and analytics. It provides developers with endpoints to access various functionalities within the Freshcaller platform.How can I handle errors while using Freshcaller API?When using Freshcaller API, ensure error handling by checking response status codes. Familiarize yourself with the error responses provided by the API documentation to troubleshoot effectively and maintain smooth operations.What are the key endpoints and objects in Freshcaller API?Key endpoints in Freshcaller API include call-related actions, user management, team interactions, and metrics retrieval. Objects such as calls, users, teams, and metrics play a crucial role in accessing and manipulating data within the platform.How can I manage calls and metrics using Freshcaller API?Utilize Freshcaller API to manage calls by initiating, monitoring, or ending calls programmatically. Retrieve essential call metrics like duration, status, and caller information to analyze performance and optimize call handling processes efficiently.In what ways can I interact with users and teams through Freshcaller API?With Freshcaller API, you can facilitate user interactions by creating, updating, or deleting user profiles dynamically. Manage team configurations, member assignments, and permissions seamlessly to streamline collaborative efforts within your organization.Useful Links: |
2024.05.21 21:04 TJSPY0837 Good first rig?
 | Hello, I’m new to sim racing and would like your advice for my first rig. I’ve been using a G923 until now. (Xbox) submitted by TJSPY0837 to Fanatec [link] [comments] |
2024.05.21 20:44 0xhxtninfosec Review / Advice on this first sim racing kit ?
 | Hi everyone ! submitted by 0xhxtninfosec to simracing [link] [comments] I'm new in the simracing game and wanted some advice on this kit, did I miss something necessary to make this work ? (The QR1/QR2/QR87558875, makes me a little worried) Or can i do better for a lower price ? https://preview.redd.it/ebvwn8iwrt1d1.png?width=1255&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca3bb8acc9a0a917b5fea57fe7c78b5420eb9747 I know that this kind of question is asked a lot and I apologise for this but didn't really find an answer I can relate to. If this is consider a repost I won't be mad if it is being deleted ! See you on the circuit ! EDIT: It is way better with the picture... |
2024.05.21 20:24 TheLotStore Finding Hidden Gems: Uncovering Inexpensive Land Opportunities
 | Finding Hidden Gems: Uncovering Inexpensive Land Opportunities submitted by TheLotStore to u/TheLotStore [link] [comments] Amid the fierce competition of the current real estate landscape, discovering the ideal parcel of land at a reasonable price may appear as a challenging undertaking. Nonetheless, through resourcefulness and diligent investigation, unearthing hidden treasures that hold significant potential for a lucrative investment is within reach. This article will delve into tactics for pinpointing budget-friendly land opportunities and maximizing their value. One crucial initial step towards spotting hidden jewels in the real estate realm is broadening your search horizons. While prominent online real estate platforms like Zillow or Realtor.com can be beneficial, they might not always showcase listings for the most distinctive or cost-effective properties. Instead, contemplate perusing local real estate websites, reaching out to local real estate agents, or embarking on a scouting mission to identify "For Sale" signs in neighborhoods that pique your interest. An additional underrated resource for identifying affordable land prospects is municipal websites. Numerous local authorities feature properties up for auction due to tax arrears or foreclosure. Such properties are frequently sold at a fraction of their market value, rendering them an appealing choice for those seeking real estate investment options on a tight budget. Moreover, consider directly connecting with local landowners. Certain property proprietors may be open to selling their land at a discounted rate if they are eager to swiftly offload it. By establishing connections with local landowners, you could uncover hidden treasures that do not appear on the standard market listings. When on the hunt for low-cost land prospects, it is pivotal to weigh the property's location and prospective utility. Target lands situated in burgeoning neighborhoods or regions slated for imminent growth. Properties near schools, commercial centers, or major transit hubs are frequently in high demand and boast significant potential for value escalation. Additionally, factor in the zoning regulations and constraints in the vicinity where the land is situated. Some properties may be subject to restrictions that curtail their potential utilization or development prospects. By meticulously scrutinizing the zoning ordinances in the region, you can sidestep investing in land that might not align with your requirements. Beyond location and zoning regulations, take the topography and condition of the land into account while evaluating probable opportunities. Land that is flat, easily accessible, and equipped with utilities tends to hold more value than rugged, remote terrain lacking fundamental amenities. By meticulously inspecting the property and contemplating its prospective uses, you can ensure that your investment is prudent. Upon identifying a potential hidden gem, thorough due diligence is imperative before initiating an offer. This encompasses delving into the property's title history, conducting a survey to ascertain the land's precise boundaries, and securing a professional appraisal to gauge the property's market worth. Furthermore, mull over enlisting the services of a real estate attorney to review any agreements or contracts prior to concluding the purchase. After securing an affordable land opportunity, ponder ways to amplify its value. Depending on the property's location and zoning provisions, you might consider developing the land for residential or commercial purposes, leasing it out for agricultural use, or retaining it as a long-term investment. By thoughtfully assessing the land's potential applications and market demand, you can optimize your investment. To wrap up, uncovering hidden treasures in the real estate realm necessitates patience, assiduity, and inventiveness. By broadening your search, exploring alternative outlets, and executing comprehensive due diligence, you can unearth low-cost land opportunities brimming with potential for a lucrative investment. Remember to contemplate the location, zoning regulations, and land condition when evaluating prospective opportunities, and seek expert advice when required. With an effective strategy and a stroke of serendipity, you just might stumble upon the perfect plot of land at an affordable price. View our amazing property deals at TheLotStore.Com. Additional Information: https://thelotstore.com/finding-hidden-gems-uncovering-inexpensive-land-opportunities/?feed_id=11259 |
2024.05.21 20:11 Creative-Sound7258 Moza R5 Bundle or Fanatec CSL Group?
Hi all,
I'm looking to get into sim racing with an actual wheel. I play games like Forza Horizon 5 and F1 21 with a controller, and now I want to play them with a racing wheel.
I'm looking to get an entry-level DD wheel, and so I say the Moza R5 bundle and the Fanatec CSL Group, and they're both in my price range. I'm just looking for tips and advice to help me decide. I'm getting the Moza R5 bundle with the performance kit for the brakes, and that comes up to $488 bucks. And from Fantatec, I'm looking at the CSL steering wheel, CSL pedals, CSL table clamp, and CSL DD with the boost kit, and that comes out to $529.80. (If I get everything CSL from Fanatec, then a $150 discount is applied to my order)
Fanatec CSL Pros:
submitted by Creative-Sound7258 to simracing [link] [comments]
I'm looking to get into sim racing with an actual wheel. I play games like Forza Horizon 5 and F1 21 with a controller, and now I want to play them with a racing wheel.
I'm looking to get an entry-level DD wheel, and so I say the Moza R5 bundle and the Fanatec CSL Group, and they're both in my price range. I'm just looking for tips and advice to help me decide. I'm getting the Moza R5 bundle with the performance kit for the brakes, and that comes up to $488 bucks. And from Fantatec, I'm looking at the CSL steering wheel, CSL pedals, CSL table clamp, and CSL DD with the boost kit, and that comes out to $529.80. (If I get everything CSL from Fanatec, then a $150 discount is applied to my order)
Fanatec CSL Pros:
- With the boost kit it is 8nm of torque
- I don't have to do anything special to play FH5
- Corsair might buy Fanatec so they could do something cool
- It's 50 bucks cheaper
- They have quick release
- Moza Pit House looks great
- All other Moza wheels (besides the V1 ones) are compatible with the R5
- Don't have quick release
- Ecosystem is confusing
- Drive Base is much bigger, so harder to store
- People have said that Fanatec customer support isn't good
- Only 5nm of torque
- SR-P Lite Pedas have bad reviews (I'm hoping that the performance kit will fix this)
2024.05.21 18:57 Less-Grab-3379 Redeem $100 Off Temu Coupon For Both New And Existing User
There has been extensive discussion on various platforms about the Temu coupon code for $100 off. The following information provides a comprehensive overview:
submitted by Less-Grab-3379 to AllTemuCodes [link] [comments]
Coupon codes that are legitimate
"act200019" is the most widely discussed and legitimate coupon code for $100 off on Temu. You can enjoy a $100 bundle coupon with extra discounts of up to 30% off by using this code during checkout.Codes for alternative coupons
In addition, some sources mention "act200019" as a coupon code. There are a variety of discounts available, including 90% off, $100 off, $50 off, $40 off, and even 30% off.Gift for new users
Temu offers new users a $100 coupon bundle "act200019" as a welcome gift. New app users can unlock this gift by downloading the Temu app and completing certain tasksDiscounts for existing users
Existing Temu customers can also get a $100 coupon bundle "act200019". When purchasing, existing customers can enter the coupon code to receive this offer.The validity and restrictions of this offer
Coupon codes vary in validity and restrictions. According to some sources, the $100 coupon code is valid for both new and existing customers throughout 2024. Check the terms and conditions of each coupon code before using it to ensure that it is still valid and applicable.Lastly
Temu coupon code for $100 off is a popular offer that has been discussed across a variety of platforms. "act200019" is the most widely discussed and legitimate coupon code. Downloading the Temu app unlocks a $100 coupon bundle for new users, and existing users can also access this offer through specific steps. Each coupon code must be verified for validity and restrictions before use.2024.05.21 18:45 Bubblysock1 I hate the EA App
 | I’ve just made the switch to the ea app and it won’t open like it says I’m playing it/the playtime is going up but nothing actually loads so when I force quit it it’s gives the option of sending a report which will do nothing anyway but it’s been like this for 2 hours and I don’t know what to do. So frustrating any help if possible pls!! submitted by Bubblysock1 to thesims [link] [comments] |