So, let's start by accepting that all rings are not created equal. Each ring is a ring, but each ring has its own circumstances that determine how they are remembered down the line. What contributes into that? Generally, it seems the most considered factors are narrative and path, narrative being the behind-the-scenes story context that gives this ring meaning to fans of the players and teams, and path being the strictly basketball elements like the opponents played and actual performance. Let's look at the recent rings going back 20 years. Disclaimer, I just started watching basketball in 2010, so I've probably missed bits of context from the 2000s ones.
I scored them out of 5 based on narrative and path, added the totals, and broke ties with my own subjective, sometimes biased opinion.

• (20th) 2018 Warriors. You won't find many non-Warriors/KD fans who respect this ring and 2017's for obvious reasons. Path-wise, they played good but not particularly great opponents besides Houston, and you can put an asterisk or two on that series if you want, though those Rockets were still a great team who would have won it all otherwise. 1/5 narrative, 3/5 path, 4/10 total.
• (19th) 2021 Bucks. A strong narrative for Giannis and the Bucks. Giannis dropped 50 to bring Milwaukee their first ring in 50 years and redeem himself for choking. The ring is unfortunately remembered along with a weird COVID season that meant half-full arenas for most of the season and some of the playoffs, as well as injuries (which will fall under the path criteria). This is the injuring. No one will remember this run without remembering KD's foot, which leads to further memories of Harden and Kyrie's injuries. Giannis does get kudos for powering through injury himself. 3.5/5 narrative, 2/5 path, 5.5/10 total.
• (18th) 2017 Warriors. This ring is funny. Narrative-wise, it's one of the weakest ever: KD ran to a 73-win team because he couldn't win by himself. On the court, though, this was the most dominant team in NBA history. You can knock them for not having to play a healthy Kawhi, but they still worked an elite Cavs team that would probably have won it all otherwise. 1/5 narrative, 4.5/5 path, 5.5/10 total.
• (17th) 2007 Spurs. Another legacy-building ring for Duncan and especially Parker, who was the first European to win Finals MVP. The Spurs also established themselves as the team with the 4th most championships ever. The hip-checking incident could have swung their 2nd round series against Phoenix though, and otherwise the run was a bit of a cakewalk. 4/5 narrative, 2/5 path, 6/10 total.
• (16th) 2023 Nuggets. Solid narrative, with Jokic leading Denver to their first ever ring and Jamal Murray showing his importance. A franchise winning their first ring gives plenty of automatic narrative points. The path points are where they fall short due to playing in a relatively weak West lacking other contenders and facing an 8th seed in the Finals. 4/5 narrative, 2/5 path, 6/10 total.
• (15th) 2020 Lakers. I don't think many still had LeBron lower than #2 all-time before this ring, but after it, I really hope no one does. He made history in winning a Finals MVP with a 3rd team. You can diminish it with the "needed AD" argument but two stars isn't a superteam. And of course COVID. The bubble did impact everyone the same, but it plays a big part in how the ring was remembered. The path itself was nothing special, but the Lakers took care of business, losing only 5 games the whole playoffs. 3/5 narrative, 3.5/5 path, 6.5/10 total.
• (14th) 2015 Warriors. A new superstar comes on stage, bringing GS their first title in 40 years. The three-point revolution has begun. Iguodala winning FMVP is still questionable. Path-wise, obviously the Cavs weren't healthy, and you can argue they would have won if they were considering how LeBron was playing. Otherwise, the Warriors made their way through a Western Conference gauntlet. I think Curry is the only player to have beaten all other 1st Team All-NBA players in one playoff run. 3.5/5 narrative, 3/5 path, 6.5/10 total.
• (13th) 2006 Heat. Miami's first ring ever and Shaq's first without Kobe. Memory of this one is somewhat marred by dubious officiating, but that may be my flair talking. That aside, beating two 60-win teams is very impressive. Off the top of my head, the only other team to accomplish that feat in recent memory is the 2009 Magic. 3/5 narrative, 4/5 path, 7/10 total.
• (12th) 2022 Warriors. Curry wins another without KD and captures his first Finals MVP, winning with a team that didn't really have any other star-level options compared to when they won their previous rings. Klay came back after 2 years out, and the Warriors weathered multiple injuries to have a strong regular season. The path was pretty unremarkable. They played injured Nuggets, but in the first round and they'd been injured the whole year. 4/5 narrative, 3/5 path, 7/10 total.
• (11th) 2008 Celtics. This ring began the modern superteam era and reignited the dormant Celtics/Lakers rivalry. KG, Pierce, and Allen won their first rings and denied Kobe a chance at 4. Dominant as they were in the regular season though, they probably should not have been taken to 7 in the first two rounds. 4/5 narrative, 3/5 path, 7/10 total.
• (10th) 2013 Heat. Ring #2 for Bron, capping a dominant individual season and establishing the Heat as a dynasty threat. You can say Ray Allen, but this is discussing how valuable the rings are to the teams, not players, so that doesn't factor into the path. I would weigh it positively into narrative due to giving us one of the most legendary shots of all time. The Heat also gave the Spurs their first Finals loss ever. Path-wise, the first two rounds were a cakewalk but the Heat took care of business, the Pacers were a strong team that went on to be the 1st seed next year, and the Spurs were still elite. 4/5 narrative, 3.5/5 path, 7.5/10 total.
• (9th) 2019 Raptors. First ring for the Raptors? Kawhi reminding the league who he is? Ending the Warriors dynasty? Buzzer-beater in Game 7? Amazing narrative. Path-wise, the fact that they faced the Warriors without KD and then Klay hurts them a lot. They still won, but the fact that you can make a very strong case that they wouldn't have without the injuries is a knock on what is otherwise a strong path. 5/5 narrative, 3/5 path, 8/10 total.
• (8th) 2005 Spurs. If Duncan wasn't already the greatest PF ever before this ring, he certainly was after it. This ring marks his 3rd, along with 3 FMVPs and 2 MVPs. A strong legacy-building ring. Great path as well, especially handling the reigning MVP and 1st seed in 5 games and defeating the defending champions. 4/5 narrative, 4/5 path, 8/10 total.
• (7th) 2010 Lakers. Same narrative as 2009 below, bolstering Kobe's case as a great in his own right without his name attached to Shaq's. The West was particularly strong this year, with the 8th seed Thunder having 50 wins. You could put an asterisk on the Finals due to Perkins' injury, but it was still a strong path otherwise. This was the first NBA Finals I watched. 4/5 narrative, 4/5 path, 8/10 total.
• (6th) 2009 Lakers. Kobe's first without Shaq, tying them in ring count and showing that Kobe didn't need Shaq to win. They made it through a strong Western Conference and beat an almost 60-win Magic team in 5. They did get fortunate in avoiding Boston due to injury, but that was well before the Finals. 4/5 narrative, 4/5 path, 8/10 total.
• (5th) 2012 Heat. LeBron wins his first-ever ring, with that legendary performance against Boston coming in the middle. Clean ring with a clean path: Melo's Knicks, solid Pacers squad, big 3 Boston's last stand, and big 3 OKC's last run before Harden leaves. 4/5 narrative, 4.5/5 path, 8.5/10 total.
• (4th) 2014 Spurs. A revenge tour. The Spurs denied LeBron a threepeat and gave Duncan a 5th ring, tying him with Kobe, and cemented Kawhi as an emerging superstar. This team is fondly remembered as one of the best pure basketball teams and for good reason. They played very strong opponents and handled them without too much trouble. 4/5 narrative, 5/5 path, 9/10 total.
• (3rd) 2016 Cavaliers. LeBron brings one to Cleveland for the first time ever and wins away from Miami, cementing him as #2 all-time in many people's eyes. And of course, he beat a 73-win team in an amazing 3-1 comeback with some of the clutchest plays ever by him and Kyrie. The Draymond suspension was iffy though as you can argue this directly swung the series. The East was also a cakewalk. 5/5 narrative, 4/5 path, 9/10 total.
• (2nd) 2004 Pistons. The Pistons remain one of the most unique champions in that they lacked a true superstar. They are remembered for exemplifying the low-scoring high-defense era of the 2000s and also ending the Kobe-Shaq era. Along the way, they beat the two-time defending conference champions in the Nets, a very strong Pacers team, and of course those Lakers. A very strong ring. 5/5 narrative, 4.5/5 path, 9.5/10 total.
• (1st) 2011 Mavericks. Perhaps the best narrative ever: Dirk overcomes the choker label and leads the Mavs to their first ring ever against a superteam thought unbeatable by many, casually ending the Lakers' run as two-time champions on the way. They played a gauntlet of difficult opponents on the way, dispatching 9 HOF players and 2 HOF coaches with relative ease. 5/5 narrative, 5/5 path, 10/10 total.

How do you think the 2024 ring will be remembered depending on who wins? The Timberwolves in particular have a chance to win a very strong ring. They would have beaten the Suns, Nuggets, Mavs, and most likely the Celtics. Gobert and KAT would throw off the playoff underperformer labels for good and Ant would emerge as one of this generation's greats. If the Mavs win, their ring would be a little weaker due to playing injured Kawhi and not having to go through the defending champs, but it would rebuild Kyrie's legacy, vindicate Cuban for tanking, establish Jason Kidd as a championship head coach, and of course give Luka a ring. If the Celtics win, they would have played relatively weak opponents for the first three rounds but could win some path points with a strong Finals showing; Tatum's perception could increase or decrease depending on how the Finals go, with his personal legacy points surely to be deducted if Brown wins Finals MVP. If the Pacers win, a strong showing against the Celtics and whoever they play in the Finals could erase the asterisks from the first two rounds. If the Pacers won while facing healthy Milwaukee and NY, it would be a crazy strong ring.

Hi,
As per title above, I want to know where to start.
Firstly, about my background I am now 38, been working in construction since 2010 after graduated as a QS and now a minor project manager in a company that I am working to help build up and much to anyone's horror (debatable), I am single and live with my parents.
My current salary after EPF deduction is around RM 2,200.00 (Kota Bharu life, heh). It may not be much but I always fork out some instead of rely on my parents all the time for house maintenance and car maintenance and annual car insurance. I always try to save at least between 900-1000 per month in my personal account. It helps that both my parents are retired teachers so they have their monthly pencen.
Infact I opened a FD in 2016 and stored most of my hard earned money and with some leftover for personal use, hobbies and emergency. It was only time during 2021 and 2022 i had to open my FD for emergency fund and now currently building back up, hopefully to reach 50k from 27k. I assure you, I did not touch my EPF at all.
The only monthly payment i need to make is my medical insurance, around RM 312.00 per monthly, and annual RM 2000 for insurance which was opened by my father when I was studying at school, and ready to mature in 2026, and I also personally opened a manulife retirement fund, which is RM 3000 annually. Otherwise I have no debt.
The problem now is last month my father transferred the house ownership to me, and soon the mutual funds both my parents have will be given to me and my brother respectively, along with some shares or stocks that I never hear my father mentioned.
The first concern in my mind is how to I able to pay the bills and cukai tanah, or land tax for my house, and all I know is opening up FD and read up something about mutual fund.
I acknowledge that I won't be rich, I want to live comfortably that I can pay bills on time.
And I am not sure where to start. My father suggest something about investing in KWSP, and I saw that i-invest, is it a good idea ?
Any suggestions will be good, thanks you for reading, and I do hope I am not coming out like a humble brag, if so, I am sorry.

Warning: This is a candid expression of my perspective, and I am eager to hear other points of view.
Having dedicated over a decade to military service, spanning active duty, IRR, TR, and IMA roles, I have also been receiving disability compensation for several years. One issue that has increasingly frustrated me is the law preventing Service Members from collecting their entitled VA benefits while on duty. Despite extensive research, I have yet to find a logical justification for this regulation. The common retort, "It's the Government, what is there to understand," no longer suffices.
In my view, once compensation for disabilities has been awarded, Service Members should not be forced to choose between receiving VA benefits and military pay. This policy seems to ignore the reality that disabilities do not simply vanish when one is on military duty. In fact, these conditions could potentially worsen or become aggravated during service.
Beyond the undue burden this places on Service Members, it also complicates operations for the VA. The VA must track periods of service, notify members multiple times, and manage what often amounts to a fabricated debt. Many individuals, based on conversations I've had, leave it to the VA to deduct nominal amounts over the years. However, this debt can grow substantially, further cutting into VA compensation if the Reserve member faces this situation annually. This approach undermines the VA's ability to effectively support veterans.
I welcome any feedback. Do you share this frustration? Can you provide insight or understanding into this issue?
Here is 10 U.S.C. 12316 for reference https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/html/USCODE-2010-title10-subtitleE-partII-chap1209-sec12316.htm

Warning: This is a candid expression of my perspective, and I am eager to hear other points of view.
Having dedicated over a decade to military service, spanning active duty, IRR, TR, and IMA roles, I have also been receiving disability compensation for several years. One issue that has increasingly frustrated me is the law preventing Service Members from collecting their entitled VA benefits while on duty. Despite extensive research, I have yet to find a logical justification for this regulation. The common retort, "It's the Government, what is there to understand," no longer suffices.
In my view, once compensation for disabilities has been awarded, Service Members should not be forced to choose between receiving VA benefits and military pay. This policy seems to ignore the reality that disabilities do not simply vanish when one is on military duty. In fact, these conditions could potentially worsen or become aggravated during service.
Beyond the undue burden this places on Service Members, it also complicates operations for the VA. The VA must track periods of service, notify members multiple times, and manage what often amounts to a fabricated debt. Many individuals, based on conversations I've had, leave it to the VA to deduct nominal amounts over the years. However, this debt can grow substantially, further cutting into VA compensation if the Reserve member faces this situation annually. This approach undermines the VA's ability to effectively support veterans.
I welcome any feedback. Do you share this frustration? Can you provide insight or understanding into this issue?
Here is 10 U.S.C. 12316 for reference https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2010-title10/html/USCODE-2010-title10-subtitleE-partII-chap1209-sec12316.htm

I just got an auto insurance quote through Progressive and it seems way too cheap. I feel like I did something wrong or something is off with Progressive. I'm married, no accidents or anything for the past 5 years, good credit. We have a 2024 suv that cost about $60k and a 2010 car that is worth about $3k. Progressive is offering full coverage on both vehicles with $500 deductible for about $370 per 6 months (if paid in full). My current insurance (State Farm) is about $1k per 6 months. How can Progressive offer insurance that much cheaper?
Thank you all for the responses below is the quote and current insurance breakdown:
My wife and I both work remote so the two vehicles are set for the purpose of pleasure since we don't use them to commute to work everyday.
Progressive quote - $370 per 6 months (if paid in full)

• Liability (BI/PD) - $100k/$300k/$100k
• Uninsured/​Underinsured Motorist BI​(UM/​UIMBI) - $100k/$300k
• Uninsured Motorist PD(UMPD) - $50k
• Medical Payments - $2k per person
• Full coverage on both vehicles with $500 deductible

Current insurance - State Farm - $1k per 6 months

• Liability (BI/PD) - $50k/$100k/$50k
• Uninsured/​Underinsured Motorist BI​(UM/​UIMBI) - $50k/$100k
• Uninsured Motorist PD(UMPD) - $50k
• Medical Payments - $2k per person
• Full coverage on both vehicles with $500 deductible

u/solvermax
Why is the Simplex LP model nonlinear in the following image?
https://preview.redd.it/agcue3ak9c0d1.png?width=697&format=png&auto=webp&s=db8bf3a2bdf79df37d28cd22e77d5955c1ae8335
Click here to download the file. See the worksheet "LP (#sup=3) err".
The formula in P6:P24 is of the form (in P6):
=SUMPRODUCT(K6:O6, $K$25:$O$25)
My guess is: the sum of the product of binary variables is considered nonlinear.
But if that were the case, why does the Simplex LP model "work" (not nonlinear) when the formuas in P6:P24 are simply of the form (in P6):
=SUM(K6:O6)
See the worksheet "LP (#sup<>3) ok".
IOW, why can we sum binary variables, but we cannot sum the product of binary variables?
Or if that's not the problem, what is?
And more to the point, how can I add the limitation of 3 of 5 suppliers to the Simplex LP model?
Related formulas:
P25: =SUM(K25:O25)
H6:H24: =SUMPRODUCT(C6:G6, K6:O6)
H25: =SUM(H6:H24)
I am using Excel 2010.
(-----)
I am not interested in an alternative Solver model or a non-Solver approach, unless my model is completely wrong-minded.
I struggle with Simplex LP models. So, I am interested in an explanation and hopefully a small tweak to my model, for my edification.
FYI, another user posted the original problem in another forum. But since this is probably homework, I am not interested in offering a solution for him. In fact, someone provided a non-Solver approach, which seems to appeal to the OP. See my Excel 2010 implementation in the worksheet "non-Solver".

Single. Paid bi-monthly salary. 2024 tax year.
I've calculated:

1. Total projected fed income tax liability for year (no FICA/state) = X
2. Total expected fed withholding for year = Y

Y - X = $2557.68, so overpayment expected and big refund
Clearly the IRS withholding calculator prompts you to enter the appropriate strange numbers into W4 Step 3 (dependents and other credits) and Step 4 (other income, deductions, extra withholding), i've heard some folks get prompted to increase their other income and enter deductions, some are prompted to enter dependents (when they have none), etc.
Anyway, I'm shocked there is no instructions on simple numbers to enter to minimize any refund...perhaps because Uncle Sam likes interest free loans and it is a "cool if you do but we're not gonna hold your hand to do so because it reduces our loans".
Here is what I am thinking of doing, let me know if incorrect: 4b 'deductions' is calculated from a worksheet in which you enter a number that is subtracted by the personal exemption $14600.
So if I put $2557.68 into line 4b, would this adjust the paycheck withholdings appropriately for the tax year? I'm assuming this line is for the tax year and not per paycheck...although given that 4c extra withholding is per pay period maybe this is not true?
Appreciate any tax accountant advice especially since stuff like Intuit Quickbooks is so ubiquitous and everyone just uses it to punch in numbers.

Following on from the BBC article posted recently “explaining” the 115 charges laid at Man City’s feet, I decided to look properly at what the charges are, given that the article barely went further than rehashing that Man City cheated over and over again without any attempt at critical analysis.

What are the breaches?

There are 5 main areas that the breaches fall into:

• Accuracy of financial information
• Manager and player remuneration
• Compliance with UEFA regulations
• Compliance with PSR
• Cooperation with the investigation

The actual text of the Premier League’s statement can be seen here: https://www.premierleague.com/news/3045970

Where did the breaches come from?

The original source of the allegations were leaked emails from Portuguese hacker Rui Pinto. Rui Pinto was handed a 4 year suspended sentence last year for attempted extortion, illegal access to data and breach of correspondence with relation to the leaks, which were posted via his Football Leaks website in 2015. Emails from Manchester City were not the only things leaked - players like Messi and Neymar were also caught up in some leaks related to their salaries. In total there were millions of documents.
These leaked emails surfaced via Der Spiegel in 2018 as part of an expose feature which they ran, and spanned 4 articles at the time. You can read the first here: https://www.spiegel.de/international/manchester-city-exposed-bending-the-rules-to-the-tune-of-millions-a-1236346.html
On the back of these leaks UEFA, after launching an investigation in March 2019, charged Manchester City with breaches of their regulations which led, in 2020, to the club being banned from European football for 2 seasons alongside a 30m euro fine.
Alongside that UEFA investigation, the Premier League also opened an investigation. It took until 2023 for them to present their charges - the statement linked above. The case is ongoing.

What about those UEFA breaches?

The club denied any wrongdoing and appealed to CAS, the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Upon hearing the case CAS found no evidence to support UEFA’s conclusions with regards to the allegations. As a result the club’s ban from European football was overturned with immediate effect. CAS sided with UEFA on their non-cooperation charges and stated that the club could have done more to provide UEFA with documents when requested. CAS therefore issued a 10m Euro fine.
You can read the verdict here: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_6785___internet__.pdf
This was the second time that the club had a run-in with UEFA. They first had a disagreement over potential breaches in 2014 related to the club spending more than the allowed amount in the previous season - the club contested that this was the result of UEFA not allowing deductibles for existing contracts started before FFP was introduced. There were no charges laid at City for this - the club entered a settlement with UEFA and a subsequent monitoring period with specific break even requirements and squad restrictions. That period ended in 2017 with UEFA declaring that the club had complied with all of the agreements within the settlement.

Didn’t City get away with it because everything was time barred?

The CAS verdict did find that the first 2 years of alleged breaches related to the club’s financial statements (the bits referred to as inflated sponsorships) were time barred (a process whereby the time permitted to bring forward the issue has passed and it is no longer possible to pursue the case - 5 years in UEFA’s rules), and so could not be considered. The rest of the years questioned were considered, and ultimately no evidence was found of financial irregularities.

Onto the 115

The Premier League statement lists 5 key areas of breaches, outlined earlier, which I will dive into more now. In total, the number of rules that the Premier League have accused Manchester City of breaching is 130. That is broken down into:

• Accuracy of financial information: 50 rules (2009/10 to 2017/18)
• Manager and player remuneration: 20 rules (2009/10 to 2015/16)
• Compliance with UEFA regulations: 5 rules (2013/14 to 2017/18)
• PSR compliance: 25 rules (2015/16 to 2017/18)
• Non-cooperation: 30 rules (2018/19 to 2022/23)

No matter how I try to recalculate it, I never get 115. I'm unsure of the exact place that the 115 number came from, and it certainly doesn't match the numbers when broken down in the BBC article.
I have broken down the list of breaches and cross referenced them with the Premier League’s handbooks for each season from 2009/10 through to 2022/23. With all five areas of breaches I have provided the text of the rule that the League included in their statement, plus a summarised version that tries to give a less legalese or technical reading. The tables are presented for reference and I won’t go into the specifics of them.

Accuracy of financial information

The Premier League stated:

In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs.

Below is the list of breaches taken from the league’s statement, grouped and translated into easier language.

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
B13, B15, B16	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith	Act honestly and fairly towards other clubs and the league itself
C78, E3	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	Each Club shall by 1st March in each Season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts in respect of its most recent financial year or if the Club considers it appropriate or the Secretary so requests the Group Accounts of the Group of which it is a member (in either case such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditors’ report on those accounts	Clubs must submit their latest audited financial statements, along with directors' and auditors' reports, to the league by March 1st each year.
C79, E4	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	The accounts referred to in previous rule shall: 1. include separate disclosure within the balance sheet or notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of the total sums payable and receivable in respect of Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums and Loan Fees; 2. include a breakdown within the profit and loss account or the notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of revenue in appropriate categories such as gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, broadcasting rights, commercial income and other income.	Clubs must include detailed and specific disclosures in their financial statements about various types of payments and revenues. These details must be clearly audited and reported
C86, E11	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	By 31st March in each Season, each Club shall submit to the Secretary in respect of itself (or if the Club considers it appropriate or the Secretary so requests in respect of the Group of which it is a member) future financial information (“Future Financial Information”) comprising projected profit and loss accounts, cash flow, balance sheets and relevant explanatory notes commencing from its accounting reference date or, if it has submitted interim accounts pursuant to Rule E.6, from the date to which those interim accounts were prepared and expiring on the next accounting reference date after the end of the following Season. The projected profit and loss accounts, cash flow and balance sheets shall be prepared at a maximum of quarterly intervals	Each club needs to provide the league with projected (or expected) financial statements for the future. These projections include profit and loss statements, cash flow details, and balance sheets.
C87, E12	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	The Future Financial Information shall: 1. be prepared in accordance with the accounting principles adopted in the preparation of the Club’s annual accounts (except where the accounting principles and policies are to be changed in the subsequent annual accounts, in which case the new accounting principles and polices should be followed); 2. be approved in writing by the board of directors of the company to which they relate; 3. to include in the explanatory notes thereto principal assumptions and risks; and 4. include for comparison profit and loss accounts for the period covered by the annual accounts and interim accounts submitted pursuant to Rules E.3 and E.6, a forecast for the current financial year and a balance sheet as at the date of the interim accounts submitted pursuant to Rule E.6.	Clubs must:1. Use the same accounting principles as in their last annual report, unless planning changes for the upcoming year. 2. Get these forecasts approved in writing by the club's board of directors. 3. Include notes that explain the main assumptions and risks involved. 4. Add comparative profit and loss accounts and a balance sheet from their most recent financial reports for clear reference.
E49, E50, E51	13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	Each Club shall notify the League forthwith of any circumstances which may materially and adversely affect any of the information or representations submitted to the League pursuant to this Section E, and on consideration of those circumstances the Board may, if it considers it appropriate, amend any decision or determination that it made based on such information or representations.	Clubs must immediately inform the league if there are any changes that could significantly impact the accuracy of the financial or other information they have previously submitted

Effectively the Premier League are stating that, for the period of 2009 until 2018, the club have not been filing accurate financial statements. This relates directly to the leaked emails that are presented to show members of staff discussing payment amounts and sources of monies that are paid to the club for sponsorship, namely for the two main sponsors, Etihad and Etisalat, that are referenced in the UEFA trial. As can be seen from the rules above, some of them are more obviously related than others. There has been some criticism of the Premier League for going for such a wide number of charges, as they have not focused on one area.
With regards to this section of breaches, the club claims that the leaked emails are not evidence of wrongdoing, and are not admissible as evidence. CAS found in favour of UEFA’s assertion that the emails were in fact admissible in their case, so the club is unlikely to be able to contest this point further. This section will essentially boil down to whether the leaked emails show enough evidence of wrongdoing, and whether any further context that has been provided by the club (something that was mentioned in the CAS trial as being helpful towards Man City’s case) is sufficient to prove guilt. It is likely that only 1 or 2 of these 50 rules above are actually key. Others, like B13, B15, and B16 which relate to clubs acting in good faith, would not be enough to charge a club without being bundled in with something else.

Manager and Player Remuneration

This section is broken down further into 2 key areas: manager remuneration, and player remuneration.
The Premier League statement:

In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager

And;

In respect of each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players

Grouped and summarised below:

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
Q7, P7	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13	No Club shall employ any person as a Manager unless and until: 1 the terms of the Manager’s employment have been evidenced in a written contract of employment between the Club and the Manager 2 the Manager’s contract of employment has been registered with the Secretary.	Clubs must not hire a manager unless the manager's employment terms are clearly stated in a written contract, and this contract is officially registered with the league's Secretary.
Q8, P8	09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13	Contracts of employment between a Club and a Manager shall: 1 include the standard clauses set out in Appendix 8; 2 clearly set out the circumstances in which the contract of employment may be determined by either party.	Employment contracts between a club and a manager must include mandatory standard clauses and specify the conditions under which either party can terminate the contract. Appendix 8 outlines that the manager must follow the rules of relevant football organisations, obey reasonable instructions related to commercial agreements, and resolve any disputes through arbitration or mediation.
K12, T12, T13	10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16	Full details of a Player’s remuneration including all benefits to which he is entitled whether in cash or in kind shall be set out in his contract.	A player's contract must clearly list all the payment and benefits they receive
K20, T29, T18, T20	10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16	Particulars of any Image Contract Payment in respect of the Player shall be set out in the contract with his Club	Any payments related to a player’s image rights must be clearly detailed in their contract with the club

The first two key rules relate to manager remuneration, and this is specific to the contract of Roberto Mancini. Mancini was the club’s manager from 2009 until 2013, and the allegations center around leaked emails that suggest he was paid £1.75 million annually as a consultancy fee for UAE based club Al Jazira on top of his £1.45 million salary at City.
For his part, Mancini has stated “I have paid my taxes, it's all above board. So I don't think anyone will be in touch” when asked about the case.
The second two rules are player remuneration and relate to Yaya Toure. The League alleges, again based on the leaked emails, that the club did not disclose all payments to the player, and that payments were made via his agent, Dimitri Seluk, during his contract with the club.
Seluk has stated “I know what has been said about Yaya's contract with City - and what I can tell you is that absolutely everything was done very cleanly, very honestly and with full transparency. Nothing was done under the table.”
Toure was at the club from 2010 until 2018. He originally signed a five year deal, before signing a new contract in 2013 taking him up to 2017. He signed his final 1 year deal in 2017. These allegations relate to his first 6 seasons.

Compliance with UEFA regulations

This section simply relates to the wording of the Premier League rules which state that clubs competing in European competitions must comply with UEFA’s rules in addition to the Premier League’s.
The league states:

In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations

Once again I’ve presented them grouped and summarised below:

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
B14.6, B15.6	13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18	Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the League and Clubs and between each Club to be bound by and comply with: - the statutes and regulations of UEFA	Each club agrees to follow the rules and regulations set by UEFA.

This rule breach seemingly relates to the period of time that was not ruled as time barred within UEFA’s case, and is not related to the original settlement between the club and UEFA, but does include the 3 years of the settlement agreement up until UEFA declared City to be compliant. Presumably the Premier League have included these to link to UEFA’s allegations of financial discrepancies related to the Etihad deal. It is unclear how much this could stick, given that CAS ruled that there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing.
It feels amiss of the Premier League to charge the club with breaches of a rule that had already been thrown out by CAS, so I can only assume that they feel that the club have either breached other rules related to financial fair play, which doesn’t seem to be the case, or they are using the non-cooperation fine handed out by CAS to bring these charges forward.

Compliance with PSR

The Premier League have also charged Man City with breaching profit and sustainability rules. These are the rules that Everton and Nottingham Forest have been docked points for recently and relate to the annual accounts clubs must file to prove their compliance.
The league states:

In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability

I’ve laid these out below, grouped again, and summarised. It should be noted in the below that any reference to T, T-1 and T-2 refers to the current season, previous and 2 seasons before.

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
E52	15/16	Rules E.53 to E.59 shall apply with effect from Season 2015/16.	The following rules will apply
E53	15/16 16/17 17/18	Each Club shall by 1 March in each Season submit to the Board: 1. copies of its Annual Accounts for T-1 (and T-2 if these have not previously been submitted to the Board) together with copies of the directors’ report(s) and auditors’ report(s) on those accounts; 2. its estimated profit and loss account and balance sheet for T which shall: 2.1. be prepared in all material respects in a format similar to the Club’s Annual Accounts; and 2.2. be based on the latest information available to the Club and be, to the best of the Club’s knowledge and belief, an accurate estimate as at the time of preparation of future financial performance; and 3. if Rule E.56 applies to the Club, the calculation of its aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 in Form 4A	By March 1st each season, each club must submit to the League's Board: Their financial accounts for the previous two years, along with reports from directors and auditors. A forecast of their profit and loss and balance sheet for the current year, ensuring it is up-to-date and accurately reflects expected financial performance. If required, a detailed calculation of their earnings before tax for the current and previous two years
E54	15/16 16/17 17/18	The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value.	The Board will check if earnings before tax reported in a club's annual accounts from transactions with related parties are valued fairly according to market standards. If they aren't, the Board will adjust these values to reflect the fair market value.
E55	15/16 16/17 17/18	The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.54 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: 1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or 2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.	Before the Board can adjust any values in a club's financial statements, they must give the club a chance to present their case regarding whether adjustments are necessary and what the fair market value should be.
E56	15/16 16/17 17/18	If the aggregation of a Club’s Earnings Before Tax for T-1 and T-2 results in a loss, any consideration from Related Party Transactions having been adjusted (if appropriate) pursuant to Rule E.54, then the Club must submit to the Board the calculation of its Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for each of T, T-1 and T-2.	If a club's combined earnings before tax for the past two years show a loss, after adjusting any related party transaction values as necessary, the club must then provide the Board with a detailed calculation of its adjusted earnings before tax for each of the three years
E57	15/16 16/17 17/18	If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of up to £15m, then the Board shall determine whether the Club will, until the end of T+1, be able to pay its liabilities described in Rule E.14.7.1 and fulfil the obligations set out in Rules E.14.7.2 and E.14.7.3.	If a club's adjusted earnings before tax for the current year and the previous two years total a loss of up to £15 million, the Board will assess whether the club can pay its debts and meet its obligations through the end of the next season as specified in other rules.
E58	15/16 16/17 17/18	If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in a loss of in excess of £15m then the following shall apply: 1. the Club shall provide, by 31 March in the relevant Season, Future Financial Information to cover the period commencing from its last accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) until the end of T+2 and a calculation of estimated aggregated Adjusted Earnings Before Tax until the end of T+2 based on that Future Financial Information; 2. the Club shall provide such evidence of Secure Funding as the Board considers sufficient; and 3. if the Club is unable to provide evidence of Secure Funding as set out in Rule E.58.2, the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15.	If a club's total adjusted earnings before tax for the current year and the previous two years show a loss greater than £15 million, then the club must: Submit future financial plans and estimated earnings up to two years beyond the current season by March 31st. Provide proof of secure funding as the Board requires. If the club can't show they have secure funding, the Board may take action as outlined in another rule.
E59	15/16 16/17 17/18	If the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2 results in losses of in excess of £105m: 1. the Board may exercise its powers set out in Rule E.15; and 2. the Club shall be treated as being in breach of these Rules and accordingly the Board shall refer the breach to a Commission constituted pursuant to Section W of these Rules.	If a club's total adjusted earnings before tax for the current year and the previous two years show a loss greater than £105 million, then: The Board may use its authority as outlined in Rule E.15. The club will be considered as having broken the rules, and the Board will report this violation to a special Commission as per Section W of the rules.
E60	15/16 16/17 17/18	The sum set out in Rule E.59 shall be reduced by £22m for each Season covered by T-1 and T-2 in which the Club was in membership of The Football League.	If a club was a member of The Football League in the previous two seasons (T-1 and T-2), the amount mentioned in Rule E.59 will be decreased by £22 million for each of those seasons

A lot of this is not specific to anything the club will have breached, and is again a criticism that has been levelled at the Premier League for not being focused enough on charging the club and instead trying to go for as much as possible. Eg rule E52 in the 2015/16 season isn’t really something that would be up for debate, and rule E60, which refers to seasons spent outside the Premier League for adjusting the £105m 3 season PSR limit.
I don’t believe that the club has breached a lot of these rules specifically, and that the Premier League has just grouped PSR as a category together to hit the club with multiple charges. It is likely that the key rule in this section is E54, which discusses related party income and fair market value. This is an important one for City, as the leaked emails have been presented to show the club receiving money from sponsors with funds that have come directly from ADUG, Abu Dhabi United Group, owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan and with an 81% stake in the CFG (City Football Group) that comprises the club.
City have always argued that these sponsorships are not related parties, something that has been previously accepted by both the Premier League and UEFA in separate agreements related to PSR and FFP under their rules. It is likely that the key here is whether the emails imply that they should in fact be counted as related parties, and therefore whether they represent fair market value.
For the other rules in this section, it is unlikely that anything of substance will be proven or even sought.

Cooperation with the investigation

In addition to the above 4 sections, which all covered rule breaches related to the hacked emails, the Premier League charged the club with non-cooperation with their investigation. This does not relate to the breaches themselves, and so you will notice that the seasons are all after the Der Spiegel investigation.
The charges are:

In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith

Grouped and summarised:

Rules	Season	Text	Summarised
B16, B15	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	In all matters and transactions relating to the League each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the League with the utmost good faith.	Act honestly and fairly towards other clubs and the league itself
B19, B18	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	Without prejudice to the League’s powers of inquiry under Rule W.1, each Club shall comply promptly and in full with any request for information made by the League (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any such request made pursuant to a demand from a statutory or regulatory authority).	Clubs must quickly and fully respond to any information requests from the League, even if these are prompted by a government or regulatory body's demands
W1	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	The Board shall have power to inquire into any suspected or alleged breach of these Rules and for that purpose may require: 1. any Manager, Match Official, Official or Player to appear before it; and 2. any such person or any Club to produce documents.	The Board has the authority to investigate any suspected or confirmed rule violations. For this, they can: Require managers, match officials, other officials, or players to appear before them. Ask these individuals or any club to provide relevant documents.
W2	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	Any Manager, Match Official, Official or Player who fails to appear before or to produce documents to the Board when required to do so under Rule W.1 shall be in breach of these Rules.	Anybody who does not comply with Rule W.1 is in breach
W12, W15	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	It shall be no answer to a request from the Board to disclose documents or information pursuant to Rule W.1 that such documents or information requested are confidential. All Clubs and Persons subject to these Rules must ensure that any other obligations of confidentiality assumed are made expressly subject to the League’s right of inquiry under these Rules. No Club or Person shall be under an obligation to disclose any documents rendered confidential by either the order of a court of competent jurisdiction or by statute or statutory instrument.	The Board can request documents or information even if they are confidential. However, clubs and individuals are not required to disclose anything that is legally confidential due to a court order or by law. Clubs and individuals should ensure any confidentiality agreements acknowledge the League's right to inquire.
W13, W16	18/19 19/20 20/21 21/22 22/23	All persons who are requested to assist pursuant to Rule W.1 shall provide full, complete and prompt assistance to the Board in its exercise of its power of Inquiry	Anyone asked to help must fully, quickly, and completely help the Board with its investigations.

Three of these are your meat and potatoes non-cooperation charges, which the Premier League will have charged City with for not providing documents when requested. A couple relate specifically to individuals within a club, but otherwise these breaches will be the most likely to stick, similar to how they did at CAS.
Man City have maintained that they do not need to cooperate with the investigation which they state as being based on illegally obtained material and have stated that they do not trust the investigation.
Rules B15, B16 make another appearance relating to acting with the utmost good faith.

When will this hearing take place?

We don’t really know. The panel has been chosen and are presumably deliberating, but as with cases of this size and with so many documents, they take time.
League CEO Richard Masters has recently stated that the case will “Resolve itself soon”, which is badly worded and has led to speculation that the club and league are seeking a way out of the case following the charges being thrown out. This is unlikely, as it would be in the interest of both to end proceedings as quickly as possible.
There have been criticisms towards the Premier League regarding the secrecy around these hearings - it is actually within the Premier League’s rules that these occur in private:
Rules W70 and X25 state: The proceedings of an arbitration convened under this Section (W/X) shall be confidential and shall be conducted in private.

Aren’t Man City just stalling?

Not really, no. The club have been charged with non-cooperation by the Premier League for their initial investigation, but there is nothing the club can do to further postpone the hearing taking place. The time required is simply because of the magnitude and seriousness of the allegations put forward by the league.
The original BBC article alleged that City were “dragging their feet” - but this is not something that stops the league handing out charges, and isn’t something that will change the timeline of the independent panel’s investigation.

Punishments

So let's say that City is found guilty - what are the likely punishments to be? The answer is complicated, as it completely depends on what charges are ultimately determined to be warranted. Talk of points deductions amounting to the thousands are pure hyperbole. The specific breaches agreed by the independent panel will influence the size of any punishment.
Given the seriousness of the allegations - essentially fraud across multiple years involving the club, sponsors, auditors and governing bodies - there must be a high bar of proof. With such a high bar also comes a high punishment if the club is deemed to be guilty. It is entirely possible that a proportionate punishment to such deceit would be expulsion from the league. This would however be the least of the club’s worries, as it brings into question the legality of the breaches with regards to individuals, HMRC and other organisations from which payments may or may not have been withheld or deliberately reported incorrectly.
Some of the above charges do not risk carrying any sort of point based punishment. The non-cooperation charges, for example, would be a monetary fine. It is also very unlikely that the league would seek to remove past titles. The scope and burden of proof that specific breaches directly correlated to titles would be too complicated.
Expulsion from the Premier League would require the club to apply to join another league, the EFL the most likely candidate. It would be at the discretion of the EFL whether they accepted the club into their league structure. Given the size of the club and the need to replace the 20th team in the Premier League, it would be likely that they would agree to include the club in their league system as a space would open up in the Championship.

Can the club appeal a decision?

Yes, there are avenues for appeal. That appeal will not go through CAS, as correctly reported, but would go to another panel. Sections W through to Z of the Premier League rulebook detail different types of appeals and tribunals for varying reasons. Section W is the section specifically referred to in the PSR rules (within section E of the Premier League handbook).

There is no Time Bar though in the Premier League

Well, kind of. There is no time bar specifically mentioned in the rules. The Premier League handbook, which you can read at https://www.premierleague.com/about/publications,does state (Rule A7) that “these Rules shall be governed by and shall be construed in accordance with English law. Strictly without prejudice to the arbitration and other dispute resolution provisions of these Rules, disputes relating to these Rules shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.”.
Essentially this means that any rules follow English Law, which itself does state a time bar for cases. This is typically 6 years for most cases, with some differences based on specific situations.
In the case of fraud this can vary, and may be the avenue that the Premier League tries to go down (which itself makes the evidence required to prove the case more stringent). For fraud cases, English Law states:

Time bar of 6 years from the date cause of action accrued
Or, if the cause of action is deliberately concealed, 6 years from when the fraud is, or with reasonable diligence would have been, discovered.
Should this be the route the Premier League has chosen then there will have to be a discussion to determine what period of time the charges can be applied to.

What about the length of grass?

There was never a charge about the length of grass. Such narrative about what the charges were came from initial analysis by people using incorrect versions of the Premier League handbook (as the rules change from year to year slightly, and those rules shift in their assignment. This is is why I have grouped them as such in the above tables). All charges relate to financial issues and non-cooperation in the league's subsequent investigation.

What about the Cease and Desist?

Rumours began last week that the club had issued cease and desist letters to individuals and organisations within the public domain related to the charges. As of yet there has been no evidence that anybody has received such a letter (although you’d question why they would publicise receiving one in the first place). It should be made clear that any cease and desist that may have been received by anybody would not prevent them from discussing the charges with which the league have brought on City. Any cease and desist letter is a demand that the recipient stops any activity considered to be unlawful - eg. in the case of this case it would be accusations levelled at the club that are not true. Examples would be the club being called cheats because they’ve done specific things that have not been proven to be true like a false statement or libel.

Can’t we just dock points now like Everton and Nottingham Forest?

Not really, no. Cases of this magnitude take time to deliberate and cross examine. There is no quick way of dealing with such a large case. The Everton and Nottingham Forest cases, by comparison, are simple breaches that can be quantified by simply looking at the submitted accounts, which for both clubs show losses that are above the agreed amount in Rule E53 of the Premier League handbook (and Rule E54 in Nottingham Forest’s case due to their recent promotion that reduced their allowable losses).
Neither club claimed to have not breached these rules, but merely tried to argue the case that their losses were due to mitigating circumstances, which the Premier League did not agree with.
Anybody questioning why analysis of so many historical charges takes longer than clear individual breaches shown on a balance sheet needs to consider whether they want a case to be resolved quickly, or whether they want it to be resolved properly, as the two are mutually exclusive.

Who wins?

Ultimately nobody wins. Reputational damage is guaranteed for either Manchester City or the Premier League depending on the outcome. It can also be argued that enough reputational damage has already been dealt to both organisations. This is often why a settlement is seen as a preferred option, as there is no long drawn out saga. The club have remained steadfast and stubborn insisting that there is no grounds for the charges and that they are innocent on all accounts. The league have been criticised for their handling of the matter and for other PSR breaches recently and don’t seem to be keen to back down in this case either.
There was also the accusation that the league had rushed through presenting the charges in order to disrupt the introduction of an independent regulator by the Government and to prove that it can govern itself. That has largely failed as the IFR (Independent football regulator) looks likely to be going ahead.
The best case scenario for the club is being cleared of all charges - unlikely due to the presence of those non-cooperation charges - a win for the club, but there will be large question marks over the Premier League’s handling, the time taken, the accuracy of the verdict and the secrecy involved. The club will also have suffered reputational damage up to this point, particularly from sections of the football fraternity who have already made their mind up.
The best case scenario for the league is trickier - it doesn’t want to be seen to be a light touch, but conversely it doesn’t want to be triggering the sort of chaos that points deductions and league expulsions might have on one of its most successful clubs of the last decade. In some ways, the league has already lost.

Closing Thoughts

There will be details that I have glossed over for brevity - there is a lot more information in some of the linked documents plus the Premier League handbooks that provides a lot more important context.
I hope the above proves useful to anybody interested in the finer details of the situation, but appreciate that it is probably beyond the scope of the kind of person who posts 115 memes and gets agitated by the lack of discussion around the charges.
There may be inaccuracies. If you spot anything then please let me know and I will make a quick amendment.
TL;DR
Shits complicated Bro

So, like many others before me, I will start this by saying I am very illiterate about taxes. And I know at the end of the day, I am ultimately responsible.
With that being said, Ive been in good hands with a great CPA for over 10 years and he was a friend and responsive whenever I had questions.
Unfortunately, he unexpectedly died last year. His brothers are all CPAs at their own firm, so they were going to take over all of his clients for this tax year. That's the back story.
Right before tax season this year, I got an audit letter from the IRS about 2022. They were asking about my mortgage interest deduction. At this point, my new CPA already filed for 2023. This was in March. He said that he was too busy to deal with anything until after April 15, and to request an extension from the IRS, which I did. They wanted some documentation about my mortgage and asked to fill out a worksheet.
After the 15th, I finally got him to look at the IRS documents and we realized that my old CPA made an error in 2022. I bought a new home (which he was aware of) and deducted all of the interest as he normally did, even though it was above the $750k limit. I've had the same mortgage for over 10 years of dealing with him, and I think he just put in the new numbers without thinking about it. A clear error.
The new CPA just followed everything his brother did and filed the same way in 2023. Which was wrong. So he amended 2023 and refiled and I paid the difference.
So we finally did the worksheet and sent the documents requested by the IRS, but in doing the worksheet he realized that his 2023 amended form was wrong again. So he needs to amend again. I'm just furious at this point. It's another $1K difference but I paid a penalty for the first amended and now will have to pay another penalty for the new amended form. Total of $1100 in penalities. For less than month late.
And now I'm just waiting for the IRS to respond, even though we know what the error is. So that's the whole story. Here are my questions:
Should I really be paying for these two penalties that were clearly errors by this new CPA?
Is there a way to just deal with 2022 with the IRS as we know what the error was? Instead of waiting for weeks or months to figure it out? Will I have to pay penalities and interest on this as well?
Sorry for the long post, it's been a very frustrating few weeks.

So I am 28 yo and have never had an accident since starting driving at 16. I don't drive anything fancy just a 2010 Toyota Rav4. I've opted to pay higher limits as I live in Seattle and have seen too many exotic cars here that I'm scared hitting one might bankrupt me. However, rates have been skyrocketing and now I am revaluating my limits and if what I am paying is reasonable.
Here is what I pay:

• Bodily Injury Limits: $500,000/$250,000--$257.00 / 6mo
• Property Damage Limit: $100,000--$164.49 / 6mo
• Comprehensive Coverage & Deductibles: $0 deductible--$83.51 / 6mo
• Collision Coverage: $1000 deductible--$161.99 / 6mo
• Uninsured/Underinsured Motor Vehicle - Property Damage Coverage: $100,000--$5.70 / 6mo
• Uninsured/Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverage: $500,000/$250,000--$321.38 / 6mo
• Personal Injury Protection Coverage: $10,000 limit--$77.93 / 6mo
• Emergency Road Service Coverage--$7.63 / 6mo
• Car Rental/Travel Expenses Coverage--$12.14 / 6mo

Auto Toal: 1091.77 / 6 mo
I also have a $1M personal liability umbrella which was pretty cheap addon at $143 / 6mo. I believe this is only available with premium coverages and figured since I've reached in net worth it was a no brainer.
Auto + Umbrella Total: $1234.77 / 6 months

So, the World Championship is over for another year, and by Tuesday morning I was experiencing serious snooker withdrawals. So I did what any self-respecting adult would do, and set about spreadsheeting the 100 greatest snooker players of all time. This post is going to be an exploration of the list I came up with.
Probably Asked Questions:

1. What were your criteria? Players were ranked using a points system for wins and runner-up finishes in the World Championship, Triple Crown and Ranking Events, as well as 147s and century breaks. There is also a modifier for "intangibles", where I have added subjective judgements to reflect a player's contribution to snooker - both positive and negative.
2. So it's based on your opinion? To an extent, yes. And even without the "intangibles" it would be because I set the points system.
3. Is there anything else we should know before you start? Probably not; let's get cracking. I will point out when I get to a player if I have made a significant judgement on their "intangibles".

Honourable Mentions
The following players did not make it onto the Top 100 list:

• Tony Meo (ENG, 103) - won one ranking event, but didn't quite have the career to crack the top 100
• Liang Wenbo (CHN, 106) - got a serious nerf for bringing the game into disrepute
• Chris Small (SCO, 108) - one ranking event win
• Michael Georgiou (CYP, 109) - one ranking event win
• David Taylor (ENG, 111) - lowest-ranked Triple Crown finalist
• Steve James (ENG, 114) - one ranking event win
• Jordan Brown (NIR, 118) - one ranking event win
• Fan Zhengyi (CHN, 124) - one ranking event win
• Tony Jones (ENG, 125) - one ranking event win
• Bob Chaperon (CAN, 128) - one ranking event win
• Silvino Francisco (RSA, 129) - one ranking event win

And the following current players are closest to making it onto the Top 100 in the future:

• Noppon Saengkham (THA, 101)
• Chris Wakelin (ENG, 104)
• Jamie Jones (CYM, 105)
• Andy Hicks (ENG, 107)

So, onto the top 100:
100 - Barry Pinches (ENG) - Highly successful player in Players Tour Championship events; 160 career centuries and a 147.
99 - Si Jiahui (CHN) - 2024 German Masters finalist, and also receives a small vibes-based ratings buff for being such an extremely talented young player.
98 - Andrew Higginson (ENG) - 2007 Welsh Open finalist, 155 career centuries and a 147.
97 - Jimmy Robertson (ENG) - 2018 European Masters champion, and 188 career centuries.
96 - Ben Woollaston (ENG) - 2015 Welsh Open finalist, 162 career centuries and a 147.
95 - Fred Lawrence (ENG) - 1928 World Championship finalist.
94 - Tom Newman (ENG) - 1934 World Championship finalist.
93 - Gary Owen (CYM) - 1969 World Championship finalist.
92 - Warren Simpson (AUS) - 1971 World Championship finalist.
91 - Tony Knowles (ENG) - 1982 International Open and 1983 Professional Players champion.
90 - Dave Harold (ENG) - 1993 Asian Open champion, with 143 career centuries.
89 - Mark King (ENG) - 2016 Northern Ireland Open champion, with 157 career centuries.
88 - Kurt Maflin (NOR) - 208 career centuries and 2 147s; possibly the best breakbuilder never to win anything.
87 - Joe O'Connor (ENG) - 2022 Scottish Open runner up with a 147; has also received a small boost to reflect the fact that his performances are improving all the time.
86 - Matthew Selt (ENG) - 2019 Indian Open champion with 191 century breaks.
85 - Darren Morgan (CYM) - two-time ranking event finalist with 108 cereer centuries; has received a small boost to reflect a long time spent in the world's top 16.
84 - Jamie Cope (ENG) - two-time ranking event finalist with 164 career centuries and 3 147s.
83 - Jak Jones (CYM) - a new entry into the Top 100 off the back of his recent run to the World Championship final.
82 - Zhou Yuelong (CHN) - three-time ranking event finalist with 207 career centuries and 2 147s.
81 - Zhang Anda (CHN) - 2023 International Champion winner, with 2 147s and 133 career centuries.
80 - Michael White (CYM) - 2015 Indian Open and 2017 Paul Hunter Classic champion, with 179 career centuries.
79 - Clark McConachy (NZL) - two-time World Championship finalist, though one was in the very silly 1952 "Championship" and has been marked down significantly.
78 - Hossein Vafaei (IRN) - 2022 Shoot Out champion, with 120 centuries; has received a small boost for overcoming the difficulties caused by his Iranian nationality on a UK-centric Tour.
77 - Patsy Fagan (ÉIR) - 1977 UK Champion.
76 - Kirk Stevens (CAN) - 1985 British Open finalist, with a 147 at the Masters; gains a significant boost for his strong performances on BBC events and for his role in popularising snooker.
75 - Anthony Hamilton (ENG) - 2017 German Masters champion, with other finals and 324 career centuries.
74 - Dominic Dale (CYM) - 1997 Grand Prix and 2007 Shanghai Masters champion, with 246 career centuries.
73 - Zhao Xintong (CHN) - 2021 UK Champion and 2022 German Masters champion, who receives a significant nerf for bringing the game into disrepute.
72 - Thepchaiya Un-Nooh (THA) - 2019 Shoot Out champion, with 180 career centuries and 4 147s.
71 - Michael Holt (ENG) - 2020 Shoot Out champion, with other finals, PTC wins and 236 career centuries.
70 - Xiao Guodong (CHN) - 2013 Shanghai Masters and 2017 Shoot Out runner up, with 255 centuries and 1 147; one of the best players never to win a professional title.
69 - Robert Milkins (ENG) - 2022 Gibraltar Open and 2023 Welsh Open champion, with 194 career centuries.
68 - Fergal O'Brien (ÉIR) -1999 British Open champion and 2001 Masters runner up, with 240 career centuries and 1 147.
67 - Willie Smith (ENG) - 1933 and 1935 World Championship finalist.
66 - Sidney Smith (ENG) - 1938 and 1939 World Championship finalist, with 10 career centuries (a big deal for the era).
65 - Mark Davis (ENG) - 2018 English Open runner-up with 284 centuries and 2 147s. Receives a small boost for being a prolific winner in non-ranking events, including three World Six-Red Championships. The fourth-best Mark and fourth-best Davis on this list.
64 - Graham Miles (ENG) - 1974 World Championship and 1976 Masters finalist, receives a small boost for his part in popularising snooker early in the TV era.
63 - Yan Bingtao (CHN) - 2021 Masters and 2019 Riga Masters champion with three other ranking finals. Receives a large nerf for bringing the game into disrepute.
62 - Mike Hallett (ENG) - 1988 and 1991 Masters finalist, 1989 Hong Kong Open champion; extremely successful in non-ranking events.
61 - Anthony McGill (SCO) - 2016 Indian Open and 2017 Shoot Out champion; came within one match of retaining his Indian Open title. Also something of a Crucible specialist.
60 - Jackie Rea (NIR) - 1957 World Championship finalist; utterly dominated Irish snooker throughout the period without a World Championship tournament or equivalent.
59 - John Virgo (ENG) - 1979 UK Champion, also receives a small boost for his services to snooker.
58 - Martin Gould (ENG) - 2016 German Masters champion, with three other ranking finals, numerous PTC finals, 251 career centuries and 1 147.
57 - Joe Swail (NIR) - 2009 Welsh Open finalist, with 124 career centuries. Receives a boost for being an extremely prolific player in non-ranking events, very strong Crucible performances, and for his achievements while living with deafness.
56 - Dave Gilbert (ENG) - 2021 Championship League champion, with four other ranking finals, 390 career centuries and 2 147s.
55 - Tom Ford (ENG) - three-time ranking event finalist and two-time PTC event winner, with 293 career centuries and 5 147 breaks.
54 - Neal Foulds (ENG) - 1986 International Open champion and UK Championship finalist; 88 centuries and a boost for services to snooker.
53 - Jack Lisowski (ENG) - six-time ranking event finalist, with 308 centuries and 1 147. Surely he has to win something soon.
52 - Joe Perry (ENG) - 2015 Players Tour Champion, 2022 Welsh Open champion and 2017 Masters finalist with 370 career centuries.
51 - Perrie Mans (RSA) - 1978 World Championship finalist and 1979 Masters Champion; also prolific in non-ranking and domestic events. Despite this success, I can find no evidence of him ever making a competitive century break.
We now enter the top half of the Top 100, where the overwhelming majority of players will be household names.
50 - Gary Wilson (ENG) - 2022 and 2023 Scottish Open and 2024 Welsh Open champion; with 236 career centuries and 5 147 breaks.
49 - Nigel Bond (ENG) - 1995 World Championship finalist and 1996 British Open champion, with 130 century breaks.
48 - Tony Drago (MLT) - 1997 International Open finalist, with 132 career centuries and 1 147. Receives a large boost for sheer talent and for making snooker so entertaining, but you could make the case for him being ranked far lower (in the 64-78 range).
47 - Horace Lindrum (AUS) - 1952 "World Champion"; three time World Championship finalist. His 1952 triumph is marked down significantly due to the nature of the event.
46 - Rex Williams (ENG) - 1986 Grand Prix finalist and two-time challenger in "World Championship" matches, with 1 147 break and a significant bonus for services to snooker.
45 - Ricky Walden (ENG) - three-time ranking event winner with 371 century breaks and 1 147.
44 - James Wattana (THA) - 1993 Masters finalist and three-time ranking event winner, with 166 centuries and 3 147s.
43 - Eddie Charlton (AUS) - three-time World Championship finalist with significant services to snooker.
42 - Tom Dennis (ENG) - four-time World Championship finalist.
41 - Stephen Lee (ENG) - 2006 Masters runner-up and five-time ranking event winner with arguably the best cue action of all time, Stephen Lee gets a huge deduction for bringing the sport into disrepute.
40 - Willie Thorne (ENG) - 1985 UK Championship finalist and Classic champion, with 126 centuries, 1 147 and profound services to snooker.
39 - Ryan Day (CYM) - four-time ranking event champion out of nine total finals, with 457 career centuries and 4 147s.
38 - Luca Brecel (BEL) - the 2023 World Champion has also won three other ranking events and was a 2021 UK Championship finalist.
37 - Joe Johnson (ENG) - The 1986 World Champion also made it all the way back to the final in 1987, but this time was beaten by rival Steve Davis.
36 - Alan McManus (SCO) - 1994 Masters and Dubai Classic, and 1996 Thailand Open champion with 228 career centuries and considerable services to snooker.
35 - Ali Carter (ENG) - two-time World finalist and two-time Masters finalist, to go with five other ranking titles.
34 - Marco Fu (HKG) - three-time ranking event winner, 2008 UK Championship finalist and 2011 Masters finalist, with 526 career centuries and 5 147 breaks.
33 - Barry Hawkins (ENG) - 2013 World Championship finalist and two-time Masters finalist, Hawkins is the highest ranked player never two have won a Triple Crown* event.
32 - Doug Mountjoy (CYM) - 1977 Masters Champion, 1978 and 1988 UK Champion and 1981 World Championship finalist.
31 - Matthew Stevens (CYM) - 2000 Masters Champion, 2003 UK Champion and two-time World Championship finalist - both of which he should arguably have won.
30 - Graeme Dott (SCO) - 2006 World Champion, and finalist in 2004 and 2010; possibly snooker's most profound Crucible specialist.
29 - Dennis Taylor (NIR) - 1985 World Champion and 1987 Masters Champion, Taylor enjoyed a prolific career and continues to work in service of snooker.
28 - Stephen Maguire (SCO) - 2004 UK Champion, with five other ranking titles, as recently as the 2020 Tour Championship.
27 - Walter Donaldson (SCO) - 1947 and 1950 World Champion, as well as six other finals.
26 - Kyren Wilson (ENG) - The 2024 World Champion has also won five other ranking events, and will only continue to climb the Top 100 in the future.
25 - Paul Hunter (ENG) - His life was tragically cut short before he could achieve his full potential, but not before winning The Masters in 2001, 2002 and 2004.
24 - Terry Griffiths (CYM) - 1979 World Champion,1980 Masters champion and 1982 UK Champion. A true snooker great who became one of the great snooker coaches.
23 - Peter Ebdon (ENG) - 2002 World Champion, finalist in 1996 and 2006, and winner of eight other ranking events including the UK Championship.
22 - Ken Doherty (ÉIR) - 1997 World Champion and reached seven other Triple Crown finals and won five more ranking events.
21 - Mark Allen (NIR) - 2018 Masters champion and 2022 UK Champion; also a prolific winner of ranking (10 others), major non-ranking (3 others) and minor ranking (5) events - only missing a big World Championship challenge.
20 - John Parrott (ENG) - 1991 World Champion, two years on from the heaviest World final loss of all time. Also won the 1991 UK Championship, seven further ranking events, and reached three Masters finals.
19 - Stuart Bingham (ENG) - 2015 World Champion and 2020 Masters champion. The ultimate journeyman come good, and nobody loves snooker more than Stuart Bingham.
18 - Cliff Thorburn (CAN) - 1980 World Champion and three-time Masters Champion, but curiously never reached the final of the UK Championship.
17 - John Pulman (ENG) - Pulman is technically an eight-time World Champion, but seven of those came in the Challenge Match era, and have been devalued accordingly.
16 - John Spencer (ENG) - Three-time World Champion in 1969, 1971 and 1977. Also one countless non-ranking events in this time.
15 - Jimmy White (ENG) - The second-greatest player never to have won the World Championship, at least according to my spreadsheet.
14 - Shaun Murphy (ENG) - 2005 World Champion (as a qualifier), 2008 UK Champion and 2015 Masters champion; I have no problems with his snooker, only his commentary.
13 - Ding Junhui (CHN) - The greatest player never to win a World Championship (yet), and the greatest player ever to come from China.
12 - Alex Higgins (NIR) - Alex Higgins is a tricky one; a boorish lout, but also 1972 and 1982 World Champions.
11 - Neil Robertson (AUS) - A truly remarkable breakbuilder who ground out a title in 2010, has since regressed a little bit as I assume he tries to make cookbooks make sense.
10 - Judd Trump (ENG) - Not a Crucible specialist unfortunately, but Trump is a master of hoovering up smaller championships.
9 - Fred Davis (ENG) - An eight-time World Champion, Fred was dominant as soon as his brother left the sport, and once played the greatest black-ball final of all time against Joe.
8 - Ray Reardon (CYM) - A true trailblazer when it came to treating every frame as important; Reardon went on to win 6 World Championships (1970, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1978. What a machine.
7 - Mark Williams (CYM) - If you slap a ball anywhere down on the table, Williams will pot it. Still going pretty strong as he put together a stunning Tour Championship this year.
6 - Mark Selby (ENG) - A four-time World Champion and one of the all-time great players.
5 - John Higgins (SCO) - It's easy to forget how good Higgins was at his prime. Phenomenal breakbuilder.
4 - Joe Davis (ENG) - The grandad of early snooker, Davis won 15 titles by the time he chose to retire and let someone else (Fred) have a go.
3 - Steve Davis (ENG) - Just such a good player, really the first one who took this whole endeavour seriously.
2 - Stephen Hendry (SCO) - Simply the clear second-best player.
1 - Ronnie O'Sullivan (ENG) - Simply the best of all time, no questions asked.
​
I hope you have all enjoyed this! I am now sleep deprived. Oops.

There with this program I used to do in school where we would work with these workbooks and learn about saying no to drugs and how to behave with friends. It has been bothering me how I cannot remember the name. I did this program in an Alabama elementary school in the 2010’s. I believe each year we would get new worksheets centered around different topics. There was always a set of reoccurring character , I believe I remember a tiger, a turtle, maybe a rabbit? These were talking animals and they would have interactions with each other teaching the kids about right and wrong. But I believe that they also talked about saying no to drugs and peer pressure. Along with these stories there was worksheets that students would fill out and answer questions. I have no idea why I want to remember this so bad but I do.

Benefits seem unlike any other compound with very little sides. Seems strange it's not more popular, first time I've heard about it was today in searching for something to help with verbal recall. What am I missing?
ALL NOTES FROM OTHER REDDIT POSTS:
The project so far has been a complete success in my case. Not only did it increase my IQ by 7 points, and my friend's by 6, I genuinely feel I am smarter being on this compound, and I've been making a lot of progressive, intuitive decisions. I've become more health focused, and it's almost as though it originates from a more introspective mindset. Sometimes I catch myself thinking more from a third person point of view, and my consciousness in general feels elevated.
A caveat here I'd like to mention is that I did not get any of these effects immediately, besides the increased IQ and working memory increase. It 100% works, but it's not acute. And normally with drugs you expect something to just kick in, but in my case there isn't a forward psychoactive effect like a "high" by any means. Others have reported the opposite, but this is my personal experience with the compound.
Some benefits were instant such as cognitive testing parameters of working memory and IQ, also dreaming. But mental benefits took a few days to manifest. In preclinical studies, antidepressant effects reached significance only 6 days after, which may also apply to some other properties of the drug.
Has went well with Pemoline in my case, Tropisetron it goes good with but I can tell they're both approaching from different angles.
2mg seems ideal, and it seems to compound day by day and reach an ideal state after 6 days. I don't think it needs to be cycled, Takeda has reported no AMPA down regulation.
Stack:
TAK-653, Tropisetron, phytoceramides, TUDCA, nutrient 950 A, coffee (because I'm dependent, not because I like it)
And often Bromantane spray and Pemoline
Sometimes citrulline DL malate + slow release arginine
__
I really like TAK-653 with a good dose of Tropisetron. Tropisetron stabilize my attention a lot and the TAK-653 makes it easier for me to hold onto and manipulate the information that comes in with the added focus.
__
It's reasonable for you to feel proud to have made this available to the community. I've been taking it for 5 days in a row now and it doesn't feel like anything else out there. No perceived side-effects.
I've been experiencing an increase in self-perceived thought quality, introspection capability, and ability to better discern and stand up for what is right for myself in situations where it is called for. I work in a high stress engineering position for a fortune 50 company and I just took a stance on a type of serious issue I usually tend to be more sheepish about. I would say that if your prone to be a bit disagreeable, it can push you farther in that direction rather tactfully. It increases your capacity for argumentation. I can also relate to your experience with dreaming. It's more weird/intense than Lion's Mane for me.
This thing does elevate BDNF production very significantly in cortical matter in rodent models.
___
Observations so far:

• This is something you notice rather than feel
  
• I laugh harder and more often
  
• I feel like I can articulate my thoughts better
  
• When attending math lectures, I can understand concepts more quickly and then go on to apply those concepts more quickly. Beforehand, I would need to become familiar with a concept before I could start abstract reasoning around it, but this process has been shortened.
  
• I'm more introspective. It shows itself as an ability to peer deeper. I just seem to be able to answer more introspective questions with a greater certainty that I was before. Paired with the previous point I made, it allows for a lot more introspective progress to be made in a shorter time.
  
• I've noticed a lot more that I simply remember certain things more easily. Before, I would need to recall the context of a fact before I could be certain of it. Like needing to remember where I read something. Now it's like, I can recall the name of a band, actor, or whatever, and I just know it's right. That knowledge appears out of nowhere and I don't even remember where I remember it from.
  

That's what I've noticed so far. The experience has been positive overall and I'll probably by more just from the boost to introspection.
__
I noticed an uptick in creativity, both divergent and convergent, subtle but definite. I have not noticed anything else.
The effects are hard to notice, but I felt a ramp down of effects after discontinuation. After two weeks, I restarted and found the effects returned.
__
It has been great. My IQ went up 6 points. I experienced improved reaction time and informational processing which led in to thoughts regarding time perception. I also feel increased mindfulness and introspection, which led to questioning some of the actions throughout my life and understanding myself as a person more clearly. My mood has been great, colors appear a bit more vibrant, and my workouts have been great. I feel more aggressive and explosive at the weights. The effects peak in about 2 hours and last all day. It tends to become a bit overstimulating, and I experience a bit of hypomania if I go to 3mg or above. Therefore my favorite dose is 2mg as it avoids those sides. Overall I would definitely recommend it and plan to continue taking it indefinitely every morning.
__
It kinda gets rid of my brain fog in the morning, while im not sure if it makes me any smarter, it does help me connect my thought bette thoughts flow better ig if that makes sense
__
I've settled on 1 mg as being the best dosage.
On 2 mg it's similar but less intense. I found myself thinking more about existential issues, death, impermanence and the passage of time.
1 mg seems to be a sweet spot in that I get the introspection without the existential dread. I'm still thinking about the above issues but they aren't affecting me as strongly. Today I cried watching my children eat breakfast because I was so appreciative that I have this time with them and the preciousness of the moment. That type of magnification is typical of what I'm sensing. It can be quite intense but much less so than a psychedelic trip. It's a softer intensity that gently pushes me toward these feelings rather than shoving me into them.
Overall, I'm going to continue at 1 mg for another week or maybe two. Not sure if I will continue. I believe the reflections have been beneficial and I can meditate on the experience without subjecting myself to the actual experience again.
I continued and noticed memory improvement with recall and short term. The introspection continued. I finished the bottle about 1.5 weeks ago and haven't had any nootropics since. Memory seems back to baseline. I don't plan on using tak again anytime soon.
__
you'll also get used to it over a few weeks. I didn't like Tak at first for many of the reasons you described. I finally settled on 1.5mgs and it worked great. Now I take 2mgs which is the suggested dose and I love it. It takes time to adapt to it.
__
I truly believe my sleep improves with TAK. I do take in the mornings.
__
I’m sure this is because of the mechanism of action of tak. I think it improves the connectivity of the synapses in your brain which makes them process information faster. Although I don’t think this would affect general intelligence, this should help people reach their intellectual potential especially in cases were someone is smart but their processing speed is holding them back.
__
I’ve been observing my bodily movements passively since starting TAK. I also have the sensation that I am listening to my thoughts and can respond to them if that makes sense. I’ve now kind of snapped myself out of an hour long discussion within myself debating if free will really exists. In past use of TAK I have thought about the multiverse theory, and the extensive possibilities of my life choices.
Reading this back makes me sound like a pseudo- intellectual stoner. But my experience on TAK has been quite distracting yet I see and experience the benefits.
__
It works like this: cognitive enhancement -> higher self-awareness -> existential contemplation.
AMPA receptor function and cognitive enhancement: Lynch (2004) showed that AMPA receptor PAMs, such as TAK-653, can improve cognitive functions like learning and memory by enhancing long-term potentiation (LTP), a key cellular mechanism underlying synaptic plasticity.
Cognitive enhancement and self-awareness: Grant et al. (2010) found that cognitive enhancement can lead to increased self-awareness and introspective experiences. In their study, individuals who underwent cognitive training exhibited greater self-awareness and understanding of their cognitive processes.
Self-awareness and existential contemplation: Silvia & Philips (2013) discovered that higher self-awareness can lead to existential contemplation. They found that individuals with higher self-awareness were more likely to engage in existential thinking and philosophical inquiry.
TAK-653, as an AMPA receptor PAM, enhances cognitive function and synaptic plasticity, leading to increased self-awareness. This heightened self-awareness, in turn, may promote existential contemplation and introspective experiences.
__
When I took TAK-653 I did notice greater introspection and a deeper penetration of insight into the causation of certain behaviors, emotions, mindsets and other phenomenon pertaining to personality.
I can't say I experienced an undeniable increase in existential, metaphysical, or philosophical thinking. But to be honest, those kinds of thoughts are always swirling around in my head anyways. Keep up the contemplating. You DO make sense of it/stop feeling crazy or doubtful if you keep developing it.
__
It may be because of the enhanced cognitive function and increased neuronal activity resulting from TAK-653's action on AMPA receptors.
__
With TAK I noticed more mindfulness/critical thinking when I'd normally be on autopilot - e.g. when I'd mindlessly reach for a cookie and chow down before, with TAK sometimes I'd get a little nudge like "hey, you had told yourself you wanted to eat healthier. you're being impulsive". And sure, sometimes I'd still eat the cookie. But not always.
As an aside, does TAK cause GI issues for anyone else? Gives me horrendous bloating and gas. Unless it's just the PEG it's suspended in, but I'd be surprised if half a ml of that stuff per day could do me in like that.
__
Sounds like greatemore constant activation of some parts of the brain associated with consciousness and self-awareness. That's speculated and supported to be some of the effects of TAK-653. I certainly noticed similar things myself.
__
I have memory improvement in almost every aspect and better fluid intelligence and it improves my depression but on the other hand i cant use it continuosly at any dose because it makes me dream all night or i cant sleep at all. Also it makes me cry on things more easily.I like it but i cant figure out that what could i do to be able to use it daily .One other thing that when i use it at 1mg thoughts seem to just stuck in my head an i just repeat them too many times. It definitely improves my IQ after all . If anyone could advice me an other nootropic to make me sleep like baby then i think I would use TAK every day.
__
rivotril seems to reduce the insomnia but i still dream all night when im using TAK.Its such a good noot cause ive never had tolerance to it.
__
Anxiety, feelings of tightness in the chest and a bit of impending doom, not severe though, just a bit on edge. Slightly faster reading speed and verbal comprehension maybe, but it's hard to test that. Reaction time to complex stuff like FPS games was better, but simple human benchmark reaction time did not improve. More rigid behavior patterns. Tradeoff was not worth it for me, but ymmv. I'm on the spectrum and take stimulant medication, so that may be the reason for my less than ideal experience.
__
One of the best nootropic antidepressants out there with no side effects.
2mg/day. Yes, I can see subtle cognitive enhancement from taking it.,
__
Tak has an antidepressant effect and is a real good nootropic, even if it's something you won't feel acutely (like you can feel something like Phenylpiracetam or Modafinil). Tak is comparable to something like Noopept, but...just better in my opinion.
It's something you'll only really notice when you work/learn and get more efficient. (Same thing with PRL-8-53 with memory: you don't notice until you are in a demanding task)
__
Haha yeah I had some wild introspection like: "Oh, why did I get angry right there?"
and my subconscious would say
"Well, when you were five years old your older sister gave you an insecurity complex that's permeated into an unconscious defense strategy which you have a fear reaction to that turned into frustration at the thought of unearthing an old wound you didn't want to confront."
I'd be like: "Oh... Huh. That's....good to know. Thanks."
___
I thoroughly enjoy(ed) TAK-653. I've experimented with a large number of nootropics - both conventional and unconventional - and TAK is my favorite so far.
I began noticing the effects after a few days of use. Also, I used 8mg split up into two doses of 4mg.
Here are the primary positive effects I've had:
Complexity Tolerance
TAK has increased my ability to *remain* focused on a complex problem and reason through it. Before TAK, there were some topic areas that I could only think about in brief periods before I felt cognitively fatigued. There seem to be two distinct effects contributing to this:

1. Reducing the burden itself: I notice that TAK results in significantly *more* connections being made to unfamiliar material. My ability to understand novel (to me) concepts by analogizing them to concepts I already understand is improved, which reduces how "foreign" some new concept feels.
   
2. Secondly, it seems that I can hold a larger number of disjoint concepts in my mind at once. I guess this would suggest some sort of improvement on working memory, though I hesitate to conjecture that working memory improvements are the mechanism of action here.
   

Memory
I've also found that my memory has improved; the frequency that I have to refer back to notes or re-read papers in the course of doing research is absolutely less than it was before starting TAK.
Ease of Deduction
It is easier for me to perform "just in time" inference and first-principle based reasoning. Even my spouse has noticed my improved reasoning & planning; my improved ability to optimize my own time; my improved performance during a debate (spouse and I often discuss some topic of mutual interest at length, which usually involves debate. She has noted my arguments are stronger and terser).
Responsibility
This is, I believe, a second-order effect that results from the direct effect TAK has had on the process of introspection.
Specifically, I am more reflective about my own behaviors, thought patterns, and macro-level direction. Introspection is also more dispassionate. A corollary to that is that I find I'm more able to be "honest with myself" without experiencing the stress that comes when you realize - for example - you've been avoiding some set of unpleasant responsibilities for too long and now you're absolutely screwed. Instead of feeling like that, it feels more like "ok, another problem to solve. Here are my initial ideas. Let's create a decision tree".
Gaming
Another interesting phenomenon I've observed is that my performance in competitive video games is a lot better. In fact, for some games that I've played for years now, I have found myself ranked multiple tiers higher than I've ever been ranked before.
Aggression
I would say it has increased my aggression a bit, as well. It isn't "anger", nor is it the sort of aggression you might experience from testosterone-related treatments. It is more that I've found myself less patient with people who aren't "keeping up" in one area or another. Whether it be stupid mistakes a person would make while driving, or listening to the redundant and useless questions the person in front of you in the checkout line is asking the cashier, I've found these sorts of incidents more aggravating than I had found them prior to starting TAK.
Spelling
This one is kind of weird. While I am certainly more articulate on TAK, my spelling has gotten worse. It is not that I don't *remember* how to spell the words that I knew how to spell prior to starting TAK; it is that I make typos noticeably more frequently.
___
I received administered IQ test before and after taking TAK. Baseline was above average, but the results did show a net IQ increase.
Having said that, the results did show a decrease in certain categories of crystallized intelligence (general knowledge and word opposites) but did show an increase in areas of fluid intelligence and quantitative intelligence.
__
For me TAK is only great for solving problems, doing last minute projects,.. not for studying. It increases my processing speed drastically which you don’t want when reading a new material but it’s best for a review. You can get 1000 flash cards on Anki in half day
___
I also used to lucid dream pretty regularly (3-4) times per week during college years (it took a while of training).
When I first started taking TAK-653 regularly, I would have extremely vivid dreams if i took it in late afternoon (and still do if I take it that late). About 40% of the time it resulted in lucid dreams with a high degree of contextual awareness.
Combine it with citicoline and tropisetron and I imagine lucid dreaming would come pretty easily.
__
CONS:
It can leave you a bit more wired than normal in case your in a high stress situation.
__
I went though a dropper of tak and personally didn’t like it. It strongly increased my introspective thinking which gave me a more analytical headspace throughout the day. However I’m naturally pretty introspective so tak took it over the edge and caused me to feel dissociative and a little autistic in social situations (really noticeable at 4mg and greater). Like someone would initiate small talk and instead of have a clique automatic response, it would make me consciously think of a response which causes a noticeable delay. Though if you’re alone and are contemplating a philosophical concept or any complex out of the box problem it’s very effective at bringing about good trains of thought and keeping them going (akin to cannabis imo). This thought amplification effect can be turned on itself tho cause if you’re in a negative headspace it will make the negative thoughts 10x louder and provide more reasons to reinforce them.
__
Ive been playing with TAK for a few months but i had to take breaks after 1-2 weeks even on 0,5 mg because i cant sleep from it at all after 1 week of use also when i try to sleep i have that horrible pressure like feeling behind my eyes plus i just cant stop thinking not for even a second.I like TAK cause it reduces my social anxiety a lot and i can chat more with people cause i have more memories but how could i get rid of this side effect ?cause if i cant sleep it is useless.I was thinking about taking phenibut in the evening or something like that.Its interesting that alcohol seems to reduce that side effect but i dont want to drink every day. Can anyone give me some advice?
__
I had an extremely confusing experience with this compound. When I took it, I was extremely tired throughout the day. However late at night this wore off and I started to do massive self-reflection on the current state of my life. I realized that if I were to die and my life were to flash before my eyes, I would probably be yelling at myself for always being so in my head. I'd be yelling to stop worrying so much about shit that doesn't matter, and to enjoy the present moments because they will not last forever. Not sure if this is a coincidence but this happened only after a single usage at 2mg.
__
Just because of using TAK I am now considering going on TRT just to feel more human.
__
Each time I try it works great for a few weeks at the cost of being overly objective. Then pros slowly dwindle and I start feeling more bogged down than anything. I don’t use it anymore but if you were to I’d recommend doing like a week on month off. This is just my opinion
___
Am I the only one who consistently gets a sense of overall dullness from TAK? It feels like it places a distance between me and whatever I'm trying to concentrate on and not in a good way; as if it makes things more nonsensical, which is basically the opposite of what I expected, and I wanted to like it. It makes meditation weird in the same way.

My car got hit. Lots of plastic body damage [bumper, fender, headlight, etc.] but nothing structural.
2010 Chrysler Sebring 97000 miles.
They sent me to a body shop that is in their network. I took it in for repair on Monday the 29th. Body shop told me that their estimate was $2700 minus my $1000 deductible. $2700 seemed pretty darn low to me, but what do I know?
5 days after I took it to the shop, SAFECO emails me and says that they are declaring it totaled and want to pay me $6500 for it. Seems low, but not terribly.
They also had told me that they are going after the other driver as they consider him at fault. His company, AMFAM denied liability.
Did the body shop grossly underestimate the cost to repair and revised their estimate?
I am just not sure what is gong on, and this kind of blindsided me.
I think I will take the settlement. Is there anything I should know or do?
They want me to retain my license plates, turn over the signed title, registration, etc. Do I give the title to the body shop? [it is in their network] Can I pick up some personal property from the car?
How do I turn the car over to them? They get it from the body shop, or do I pick it up and drive it home and they pick it up there?
I just have no experience with this sort of thing. Is SAFECO trying to scam me?
As far as i know, SAFECO does not have an office in my town.
EDIT: also, if they do not collect from AMFAM will this be considered a "my fault" accident and raise my rates a lot?
Thank you in advance.
Postscript: Thanks to all that commented. Y'all have been very helpful. Yep, gonna take the money and run.

Hello, I am a class of 2022 graduate. I graduated with a 3.8 gpa, #68/366. I spent 8 years in Connections Academy before finishing my high school career in public school. I write this post as a warning to parents and other peers wanting to homeschool or online school, the consequences of isolated learning have been incredibly punishing. I grew up in a small town of around 8000 people, about 16 miles from town. Living in a rural area in the mid 2010's, my family struggled with the financial burden of having 3 kids and homeschooling seemed like a better option than driving to 2 different schools every day (the bus didn't run out there).
I barely remember my childhood. There was a moment after 3rd grade where the Connections' curriculum made me go numb. Monotony took over my life, every day I woke up, ate breakfast, and then sat in my room until lunch and dinner, doing work or playing video games. I did this almost every day for 8 years. The consequences of unrestricted internet access and complete social isolation have shaped me into who I am today, it is a miracle that I am still alive. I have diagnosed depression and anxiety, I have no social circle, and I resent my parents for making me do homeschooling. I am so deeply insecure that it even appears in my close relationships, and I struggle to maintain relationships with people I haven't known my entire life. Because I was homeschooled, I never did any real extra curriculars, my parents had no time to move me back and forth between clubs or sports. I got no meaningful scholarships, and cannot afford to go to college. I have never been to a real party, and I do not have the commonly shared experiences that most teenagers have. I have ADHD, its "lucky" my mom would punish me physically when I got bad grades or I would have failed school. I cheated on every test, every worksheet I skipped or glossed over. Why should I do the work when I can just cheat and get it done quickly and go play video games? Connections Academy was a tough school. The curriculum is incredibly repetitive, and it is so laughably easy to cheat on every single test. The mandatory live lesson meetings were always a boring mess, the logistics of keeping 30 kids focused and responding to questions makes for messy unfocused lessons. I did not learn much in class, thankfully I learn quickly or else I would have struggled more in high school. Attendance was tough and often class schedules would pile on quizzes and tests in the same time frame. The ability to do as much work as you wanted meant I would complete 10-20 lessons a day sometimes (via cheating). I actually ended up having to take extra classes because I didn't have any classes left almost 3 months before the end of school.
There was a moment in middle school when I wanted to branch out more, so my mom brought me to a homeschooling get together. The group was hard Christian, and unfortunately was just a bible study group. These kids didn't even know how to play checkers properly, and the reading circle was almost illiterate. I remember never talking to them again, there was such a staggering difference between me and them that it only further pushed me inside myself. It was the only local friend group I could have gotten into. I was groomed by another student shortly after this experience (she was 17 I was 13), but because I was so desperately alone I thought it was normal. She exploited my vulnerability, made me do things and nearly caused me to kill myself. The school did nothing when informed of course. Had I grown up in public school, I assume much of this would have never happened. I was a small child alone in a new emerging era of the internet, forced to navigate it out of necessity. Extreme social Isolation will not fix your child, you will not mold them to your liking. They will grow to resent you when they escape their bubble and explore the world beyond its scope. Do not force your child away from their peers, do not force your child to endure the numbness I felt every day.
I am aware my parents weren't the best, and the circumstances I grew up in weren't the best, but I consider my parents to be at least the average for southern hard conservatives, so my experiences certainly aren't unique.

BNA Income Tax Planner has a W-4 worksheet built into the program. I ran a projection then prepared the worksheet.
I don't understand what it's doing.
It's coming up with 299k for line 4b, extra deductions but these people don't itemize. Of course they don't have a way to drill down on the calculation.
I wish I knew how the W-4 translates to the paycheck now. The line 4c, extra withholding, amount makes sense, though.

I will find the YouTube influencers list having valid contact information for social media marketing and influencer marketing. I will research and provide quality emails according to niche, country and subscribers that suit your business, products, and services.
https://preview.redd.it/lj3b0ki38hxc1.png?width=1680&format=png&auto=webp&s=0b46c66463ddd00c749069e75878ba312167c7cb
~I will give you the following information~:

• Channel Name
• Channel URL
• ~Valid Business Email~
• Category/Niche
• Location
• Channel Data (Total subscribers, Total Views)
• Social Media Link (optional and if available)

~Information Need from You~:

• Targeted niche/category
• Country/location
• Subscribers limit (if you want) and
• Other requirements (if any)

Why me?

• 100% Customer Satisfaction
• 100% fast delivery