I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

On a rainy Saturday afternoon not so long ago when internet connection was fluctuating in most homes, the 80-year-old Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, widow of the late Senator Heherson Alvarez, carrying a mini iPad, hurriedly alighted from a three-wheeled pedicab Toktok and stormed her way into a popular coffee shop in a mall in Manila.

A senior citizen in panic mode, she told the stunned baristas she’s looking for a Wi-Fi connection because she was about to interview retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio via Zoom.
The coffee shop, a known world brand, has Wi-Fi exclusive to its employees, so the old lady was told to try other establishments. She went from one coffee shop to another only to be told the same, until a kind stranger led her to a well-known beauty salon with a free internet connection.
The lady salon attendant was very accommodating to the octogenarian, even typing the password on her IPad. Of course, she needed to avail herself of their salon services. Initially, she opted for a haircut, but since she needed to talk and hear clearly who she was talking to, she settled for a foot spa with pedicure.
“They lowered the volume of the piped-in music, and since there were less customers because it’s been raining all day, I was able to do my interview,” Guidote-Alvarez said.
For the next half-an-hour, the hair dressers and manicurists working with their scissors, nail clippers and cuticle removers on their customers’ hair and fingernails, listened to Carpio and Guidote-Alvarez discussed how Filipino fishermen and the Philippine Navy ships helplessly negotiate their ways in Scarborough Shoal amid the territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea.
“They were all very nice to me. I was able to finish my interview, with newly pedicured nails,” she told The Diarist.
For those who’ve worked with Guidote-Alvarez, her steadfast, almost stubborn, nature to accomplish a task, is nothing out of the ordinary. She would improvise, find alternatives, call up friends and former students, wake them up from sleep, just to get things done.
But now, in her 80s, legally blind and nearly deaf, she has mellowed down.
Cecile Alvarez with her mentors, National Artist for Literature Alejandro Roces, Jr and Fr. James Reuter. SJ
In her twilight years, Guidote-Alvarez has been solely hosting the 57-year-old Radyo Balintataw on DZRH, one of the oldest radio stations in the Philippines, where she tackles a wide range of topics, from climate change, women’s health, theater, culture, dance, to current issues, apart from playing old recordings of classic radio plays she produced and directed, dating back to the late ‘80s.
She shared with TheDiarist.ph how she started and continues to host one of the longest running advocacy programs on AM Radio.
Theater on TV
After founding the Philippine Educational Theater Association (PETA) on April 7, 1967, or exactly 57 years ago, Guidote-Alvarez thought of the need to expose PETA’s members to television, so she started conceptualizing Balintataw, which in Filipino means the pupil of the eye, but in a larger context has something to do with having wild imagination, or what you might see if you have a third eye.

“I designed Balintataw as a bridge between cinema and the stage, where the youth being trained in theater skills can have a ready-made laboratory experience linked with the film and entertainment industry that would likewise have a natural on-the-job training and orientation regarding the theatrical discipline of working with a literary script, whether dramatic or comic—not the regular improvised script done on taping or copycat scripts from foreign themes,” Guidote-Alvarez wrote in her yet-to-be published Memoir of a Freedom Fighter’s Wife.
“A primary goal when I conceived PETA was to initiate and sustain artistic expression that draws meaning and power from the lives of the people, and sharing the literary gems with a greater number of audiences through a Broadcast Theater-Film Program with Balintataw on Channel 5,” she added.
“No matter how little the pay, at least it provided our local writers with a little honorarium. I sought permission for award-winning pieces of the Palanca Playwriting contest to be fleshed out to reach the masses. The much-awarded playwright Bert Florentino served as our literary manager, assisted by Mauro Avena. Eventually, Isagani Cruz took over when Bert left for the US,” she wrote.
“Writers need exposure and encouragement through a regular TV performance that will give them a sense of achievement and inspire them to keep on writing with some kind of honorarium. I was glad Lupita Aquino (now Kashiwahara) agreed to be TV director and Robert Arevalo as TV host.
She got members of the PETA Kalinangan Ensemble to serve as stage directors. “This is to undertake preliminary preparation with a rehearsal with the actors for character development and memorization and preliminary staging,” she wrote.
Five months after PETA was founded, Balintataw TV premiered on Channel 5 on Aug. 19, 1967, coinciding with the Buwan ng Wika birthdate of President Manuel Luis Quezon.
The first play, whose title escapes her now, featured Armida Siguion-Reyna and Maria Eva “Chingbee” Kalaw. She employed photo journalist and award-winning photographedocumentarist/cinematographer, Romy Vitug, to work with her in filming outdoor scenes for Balintataw.

In the pre-Martial Law Balintataw, among those initiated into television were Lino Brocka, Elwood Perez, Nick Lizaso, Maryo delos Reyes, Mario O’Hara, Joey Gosiengfiao, Behn Cervantes, and Frank Rivera.
Among the stage actors who crossed over to television were Lily Gamboa, Angie Ferro, Lorlie Villanueva, Jonee Gamboa, Joy Soler, Sherry Lara, Gardy Labad, Noel Trinidad.
Like with PETA, Guidote-Alvarez directed and managed Balintataw for five years. Because of Martial Law, she and husband Heherson went on exile in the US to escape a military shoot-to-kill order on Heherson, who was tagged as a subversive.
Post-Martial Law
Internationally acclaimed auteur Lav Diaz mentioned in several interviews how he learned writing radio and TV scripts in Balintataw.
This happened in the late 1980s, when the Alvarez couple returned from exile.
Despite its absence on the air in the Martial Law years, Balintataw was honored by Star Awards as among the 20 unforgettable outstanding broadcast programs in the Philippines.
“This encouraged me to consider reviving Balintataw on TV. Another blessing was a FAMAS award for having an important role in the development of cinema recognizing Balintataw as a bridge for synergizing cinema with the stage, providing a pathway of entry of our PETA artists into film and for movie stars to consider enriching their experience by acting on the legitimate stage,” Guidote-Alvarez wrote.
Though she didn’t return to PETA anymore because it had been surviving well and had its own set of officers led by Brocka, she just tapped some of its members for the return of Balintataw.
For 14 years, the Alvarez couple lived in the US as political exiles, shown here during a Ninoy Aquino Movement meeting. Cecile revived Radyo Balintataw upon their return in the late 1980s.
Channel 4 stint
“I arranged to revive TV Balintataw on Channel 4 in 1989. We began with a drama about a rebel returnee, title escapes me now, but I clearly remember it was written by Lualhati Bautista and directed by Maryo de los Reyes. We also had a good story series on the hazing of Lenny Villa, an Aquila Legis Frat neophyte,” she wrote.
At the time, Heherson had been elected senator after having served as Agrarian Reform Minister and eventually Cabinet Secretary during the first year of the Cory Aquino Administration.
“We were able to unravel the deadly hazing process from a fellow neophyte who broke the code of silence as we revealed graphically, acted the cruel process used. I had Jose Mari Avellana direct it. This presentation won all the awards. Lav Diaz was training with us and he started writing teleplays. We also had Nora Aunor in an adaptation of Bert Florentino’s The World Is An Apple, adapted by Frank Rivera, and I had Nick Lizaso direct.”

Emmy Awards
Balintataw TV was selected as one of five soaps for social change recognized by Emmy Awards. The Philippines was one of five countries cited, with Mexico, India, Brazil and Kenya.
“The nomination was made possible by the wonderful support from David Poindexter. It was a supreme honor for our country to be recognized in the Emmy Awards, to be cited among the five Third World countries using soap opera for social change.”
Poindexter was a Methodist minister and TV producer who founded the Population Communications International.
Surviving on radio
“In spite of the cry about how television can be deadening the minds of the people with copied themes with an eternal favorite love triangle story, there was really no funding for Balintataw,” she wrote.
“Sponsors would go naturally to the commercial stations where big stars were paid highly for the starring role. Balintataw may have substance but we could not afford payment of bankable stars,” she added.
“Financial stress forced me to drop TV and remain on radio because I didn’t want to kill Balintataw per se just because we didn’t have funds.”
Creative classroom
“We have focused on Balintataw as a creative classroom on the air. I was able to talk to Fred J. Elizalde of DZRH and the president of the network, Mr. Jun Nicdao,” she wrote.
In the ‘80s, the HIV/AIDS became a global epidemic and in the Philippines, the general populace was still clueless on how to deal with it.
“In order to get funding, the first series I did was about the explosive news regarding AIDS in Asia. I got the DOH Secretary at the time, Dr. Juan Flavier, to act as himself, providing the data. It was easier to start off with an AIDS radio serial.
They did a minimum of 13 episodes to raise awareness about the disease.
“From then on, some of our television scripts we transformed into a radio version. DZRH provided us with our initial production staff, so we used some from the network and some of its resident artists and drama talents. Our time slots were changing but always coming after the long-running horror drama, Gabi ng Lagim.
“We worked on the themes of overseas workers, the drug problem, corruption, aside from portraying contemporary and literary classics serving as social commentaries,” she wrote.
Women playwrights
“We dramatized the works of noted women writers and playwrights like Estrella Alfon, Genoveva Edroza Matute and Marilou Jacob, who is distinguished in being a founding president of Women’s Playwright International.
“Apart from our PETA staple of writers, we involved young, upcoming and budding university and community theater groups.
“We also had a lot of foreign plays, where we could feature theater festivals beyond borders. We could do Shakespeare, we could do Euripides but also the current playwrights in the Arab region we translated in our language.
“We brought in Chinese contemporary plays, Malaysian, Indonesian and from other women writers from ASEAN member countries.”
Virtual history book
“The significance of Balintataw is portrayed as a virtual history book on audio as it unveiled events in the country. Radio is fresh, instant and up-to date,” she added.
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, Balintataw became Guidote-Alvarez’s outlet and therapy. Having lost her husband on the second month of the pandemic, a widow cocooned at home, she began hosting it six days a week, learning how to use an iPad and interviewing via Zoom.
The word “Balintataw” has been associated with her name.
Visual artist and editorial cartoonist Benjie Lontoc in casual meeting told us how in his younger days, when AM Radio was a national past-time, he was surprised to hear a Filipino adaptation of No Exit by Jean Paul-Sarte. This was when radio was airing soap, fantasy adventures targeting housewives and children.
Another was the airing of Larawan as a radio play in the 1990s, with Guidote-Alvarez as the voice of Candida Marasigan.
Leopoldo Salcedo (left) as Manolo in a confrontation scene with Dante Rivero as Tony Javier in PETA’s 1968 ‘Larawan’ directed by Cecile Guidote-Alvarez. (Photo from PETA archives)
In the 1960s, she directed Larawan, the first Filipino adaptation of Joaquin’s A Portrait of the Artist as Filipino for PETA’s second season. It ran from December 1968 to January 1969 at the Raha Sulayman Theater at Fort Santiago in Intramural. In the cast were Rita Gomez (Candida), Lolita Rodriguez (Paula), Leopoldo Salcedo (Don Manolo) and Dante Rivero (Tony Javier).
Guidote-Alvarez has a funny recollection of the radio play. It was Nick Joaquin himself who told her years ago how his pedicurist suddenly started a conversation about Larawan.

Joaquin was relaxing on the barber’s chair having a post-haircut pedicure and foot spa when the lady pedicurist asked him how the story would end. Joaquin was stunned because he didn’t want to be known in the barber shop as Nick Joaquin the famous National Artist for Literature, but just a regular customer.
“He told me he almost fell out from the chair. He was a very private person and the pedicurist recognized him as the playwright,” Guidote-Alvarez, laughing, told TheDiarist.ph.
When she was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000, she was given only three years to live. It’s been more than two decades since then. She has also conquered COVID-19 twice.
Over and beyond her work in theater and various advocacies, Guidote-Alvarez is among the few surviving practitioners of AM Radio broadcasting.
The beauty salon incident wasn’t a first for the octogenarian radio host. She occasionally went back there to interview guests and record her shows whenever Wi-Fi connections in her home fluctuated.
Despite all setbacks, man-made or otherwise, the steadfast Cecile Guidote-Alvarez’s voice continues to be heard in this mass media platform in an era that knows mainly Spotify. As Joaquin wrote, “to remember and to sing, that is her vocation.”
(Except Saturday, Radyo Balintataw airs daily on DZRH 666 Khz AM radio after ‘Gabi ng Lagim’, and live streamed on radio.org.ph. Some episodes have been uploaded on YouTube.)

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

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

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

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

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

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

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

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

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

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

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

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

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

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

I am just finishing up with SP's Sunne in Splendour, and I have loved every word. She writes beautifully, and I have been hooked from cover to cover. I have a number of her other works in my "to be read" list.
However, I am looking for some historical fiction set a little before the times she writes in. I am particularly interested in the Viking Age, pre-Norman England, and Dark Ages Britain. I am quite picky, and would like something that has the same quality of writing and research as Sharon Penman.
I have read some Conn Iguldon, and though I do rate him quite highly, I don't think he is on the same level as Penman. So who are the authors and which are the books I should explore for Early Medieval historical fiction that have the same quality as Sharon Penman?
Many thanks in advance.

I think i need help? I have been writing on and off a story for about a year now and i am truly in love with the story.
The problem is, the outline has become massive, and the number of characters are out of control.
I'm currently sitting at 3 outlined books, only missing a few chunks of the third part, about 30 something characters the last time i counted. I tried cutting somethings off but all of them have a huge impact on the story and I'm left unsatisfied with it when they're not there. I'm only counting characters that appear more than just a couple of times and have significant agency when it comes to the plot.
Anyone has any tips on how to get through it? I'm a newbie writer, and I'm overwhelmed with how big it has gotten.
ps. the on and off was due to health issues, a few personal life troubles, as well as a freaking flood lol.

Hey there guys! I'm a first gen girl from North India in class 12 cbse from a middle class family of 7. Im putting this info here only for 2 days b4 deleting. Guys it would be very helpful if u can chance me and tell me what I can do to improve(advice me here or on pm ) . Im not posting this on chanceme due to the toxicity there . My school is basically a school where people have very little interest in applying abroad there is no counselor and very limited knowledge but yeah couple of teachers are supportive mainly prep for jee or neet is done here. So there are no clubs or extracurricular activities of any kind I have done this all on my own).
Major: physics Uchicago ed1 Sat:1580(800 math) Grades 9-96 10-92 11-70 ( this happened due to bouts of pneumonia and typhoid throughout year due to which I couldn't go to school and even missed a few exams . There was also heavy grade deflation)(this is my applications weakest point pls advice me about what I can do . I'll be mentioning this in sop and my teacher will also mention this in lor) 12-96(expected) AP: my school doesn't provide and they are expensive af Financial aid: no ( loans and external scholarship maybe I'll ask for 18-20k/yr from uchicago cuz coa is 97k/yr)
Awards and honours 1. Research paper award (international) 2. Conrad challenge top50
3.ioqm

1. aknowlegment by hon' PM Modi for continued efforts to bring improvement in society ( also got acknowledged by ministry of education)
   
2. School academic distinction 9-10
   

ECS

1. 2. 3. All three are research papers 1 on math reviewed by UIUC prof and 2 on physics (astro) that have also been acknowledged by iiser profs
2. Astronomy app
3. Braille and sign language educator at local school have held initiatives and workshops as well as working on making a free course right now
4. Research with iit prof ( ongoing)
5. Research project - an innovation hailed by ministry of health and iit profs.
6. Tutor for underprivileged children for 4 years
7. Book on physics (250+ pages still writing)
8. Mun and debates or a research project I'm doing this summer
   Essays i must say are nice ( I'm a good writer as well as quite into philosophy)
   

Letter of recommendation - my teachers love me and must say the draft of my chemistry teacher lor is a piece of art. And I'm hoping if iit prof will also write me one.
So yeah this is it. I know I was a bit vague it's because I didn't wanna get doxxed. PS I have also built a small electromagnetic particle accelerator at home. 🌟

I'd like to share a lengthy and self-indulgent note about my history with the Baha'i community and the impact it had on my family and me. It's worth noting that I'm sharing this using a throwaway Reddit account that I generally reserve for browsing porn. I find funny to imagine a Baha'i apologist reading this, becoming angry and judgmental, and then, investigating my profile and ending up jerking off. With that said, let's dive into my story.
I want to share my experience in case it resonates with someone else, a lot of the stories on this Reddit helped me, and perhaps my story will give some comfort to someone else. It has taken me a while to write this down, and I'm glad I finally got around to doing it.
My parents emigrated from their homeland for reasons of principle and value. Upon their arrival, they were greeted by Baha'is who met them. And so, lovebombed and lavished with love, praise, and celebration for moving countries due to values that they portrayed as being closely aligned with the Baha'i faith, my parents fell for this validation and worked very hard once they became Baha'is in the mid-1980s.
My dad got rid of all of his whiskies, and swiftly, my parents began hosting potlucks and fireside chats, diligently working to integrate into the Baha'i ecosystem. Back then, the atmosphere was fairly light-hearted, with devotional gatherings, prayers, and a somewhat 1960s-esque hippie vibe. There was live guitar music, and joss sticks.
However, I remember Baha'i classes having an interesting edge. We were taught that Buddhists were not following a religion but merely a way of life, and that Hindus had become pantheistic because they had lost the core of their faith and religion, which had become corrupted over time. Thanks to Google, I can discover that yes indeed, this is from Lights of Guidance.
There was a significant emphasis on the importance of gender equality and the oneness of humanity – because, hey, the eighties. I feel sad there isn't anything anymore about the Virtues project - even if the Virtues project was sort of framed like it was created by Bahais.
Even in the 1980s, there was an overwhelming atmosphere that the key to being a good Baha'i was how you presented yourself rather than your actual behaviour. I recall learning an apocryphal tale of a young Baha'i who, while fasting, participated in an aerobics class and nearly fainted (yeah, aerobics, this is a real 80s fable), but was told by another Baha'i to prioritize representing the faith well over completing the fast because *it looked bad*. From a very early age, I learned the importance of putting the right face forward.
My parents then took their relationship with the Baha'i faith to the next level and volunteered at the World Centre in Haifa. As a child, this was a pretty interesting experience. I was suddenly immersed in the Iranian, or rather, Persian community, with its strong culture of martyrdom. Even as a child, every event seemed to feature graphic videos depicting young kids being taken from their homes. It was quite frightening, and I remember being afraid.
I also recall a strong sense of hierarchy within the community. My family lived in a small apartment with a very old, busted-up car from the 1970s, while others resided in nice homes with pleasant views and drove nice cars. I attended a local Israeli school, which was a cultural experience in itself, while my peers my age went to the much fancier American school. It's important to note that, at this point, the conversation about the "great catastrophe" – two-thirds of the world's population dying, leading to a period of peace and the entry by troops – was a prevalent topic openly discussed at the World Centre.
We completed our stint there, even living through the Gulf War. Upon returning to my birth country, my parents chose to live in places with smaller Baha'i communities, as they wanted to support and help establish Local Spiritual Assemblies. Things had changed by this point, not only because I was a teenager but also because the community itself had transformed. There was a significant Iranian presence everywhere, and the focus had shifted heavily towards rules, especially those related to sex, drinking, and drug use. There was also a huge emphasis on financial contributions to the faith, and it was the first time I began to see a somewhat materialistic outlook within the community.
As a preteen and teenager, I engaged in activities like dropping off flyers in mailboxes and soliciting strangers to talk about this great new religion, all in the name of “teaching”. I joined the local choir and sang, inspired by a crush I had on a girl there. This was probably the golden time of the community, with the choir doing outreach and a balance between Western and Iranian believers.
However, things began to accelerate. The Ruhi Institute and teaching became significant focal points. I was encouraged to bring a good friend of mine to a Baha'i camp, and once there, I was pressured to ask him to convert. It was very uncomfortable.
This Reddit loves cringe stories, so here is a winner: I had a birthday party with my non-Baha'i friends, and two older Baha'i girls attended. One of the girls ended up stalking my friend, showing up at his workplace and calling him at home with sexually suggestive comments. The matter was escalated to the Local Spiritual Assembly, but instead of talking to me about it, they basically ended my friendship with this kid. To me, this somehow captures so much of what it was like to be a Baha'i child and how Baha'i adults treat children to this day.
When I turned 15, I signed up for Baha'i membership because it was the expected thing to do. However, by the time I was in my early 20s and studying at university, I had started to interact more with the local, real-world community. This might seem like a small thing, but it was actually quite significant. You see, my parents had always felt a little bit on the outside compared to the average person on the street around them. This sense of elitism was really exacerbated by being a Baha'i because Baha'is would walk around in a cloud of self-assurance, slapping each other on the back and saying , "We don't do drugs. We've got all the answers and solutions, not like you." That was pretty much the attitude. It felt very socio-economic, with a lot of judgment towards working-class people. When the Iranians arrived, the cultural judgments grew even stronger.
But I was working in restaurants and learning about booze from bartenders. I had gotten to know real people. I had lost my virginity, and all that Bahai jazz seemed so much less relevant. I hardly even noticed when the year 2000 arrived without the predicted apocalypse, entry by troops, or any of the other anticipated events. Life went on. I lived in another country and met a girl, and we lived together.
Here is cringe story #2: my girlfriend /fiancé and I hosted a Bahai couple from my hometown. Despite being in my late 20s and engaged, and even though I hosted this gentleman in my house and helped him with his preparations for his business and presentations in the country where I lived, he reported to the Local Spiritual Assembly that I was living with a woman and we weren't married. It was absolutely amazing. The level of judgment still grosses me out.
I started to reflect on what the religion had meant to me and saw how it had changed. The obsession with fundraising was becoming ever more strident and panicked. The gaps in the actual scriptural logic of the religion were becoming more exacerbated as real-world problems still ran rife, and real-time discussions on social media brought these issues to light. It took me a while to start really digging into it, and it was only much later, when I started therapy, that I realized I needed to formally resign from the religion.
Looking back, it's astonishing how this religion, which professes to have such blind equality between the genders, as if other religions have some kind of hardwired sexism, actually had hardwired sexism in how the Universal House of Justice operates. A religion that taught the oneness of humanity, as if all humanity is equal and other religions don't recruit from anyone they can find, places divisors. Although of course, Bahai’s can’t recruit from Israeli Jews, so much for oneness of humanity. But this religion has taught that all humanity is equal, unless, of course, you're gay. Then you can't get married, let alone have sex.
There are other principles I haven't touched on, such as non-involvement in politics, unless it involves things happening to Baha'is or politics in Iran. The principle of independent investigation of the truth doesn't seem to work if you might investigate something that's not in line with the Baha'i perspective. The idea of a universal language? I don't really see any evidence that they're even really thinking about that one. The unity between science and religion? A religion that only allows men to sit on its senior board of a global theocracy probably isn't going to jive with a contemporary scientific perspective…. I mean, apparently you don't need a penis to be a man anymore, right?
In between these moments are my colorful memories of random things, like endless discussions about the boundaries of physical intimacy, people getting married at the age of 16 because they had exemptions for being Persian, and meeting Ms. Khanoom in Israel, feeling some sadness that the lone woman who at least brought some feminine energy to the World Centre is now gone, replaced by 12 boring men.
I've had conversations with my wife where I tried to explain what Baha'is actually do. She just wonders why they aren't doing stuff like normal religions do, like reading to the elderly or supporting schools for the disabled. I explain that's not the target demographic. I remember a wealthy man brought to firesides who obviously nobody else wanted to listen to, but we all sat around and applauded him like he was a great ukulele player and a clever man. He pointed out a hilariously Iranian man who was an alternative healer, and they got into a debate about modern medicine. The wealthy man said, "Well, you should see my daughter and what she studied. She studies Law." And then quickly changed the subject when asked about her name since I studied at the same Law school. Here's this man who's self-aware enough to join the adoration of his crowd but doesn't want his daughter mixed up in it in any way. Absolutely hilarious. Make that cringe story #3.
This reflection was sort of sparked when my wife and I discovered that the writings attributed to Rumi, which Baha'is often quote, is the same guy who started the Whirling Dervishes. We read about Rumi and I realized just how different he is from Baha'u'llah. Rumi wrote poetry, but he didn't pretend to be a prophet of God. He was just offering a different dynamic for how to interpret spirituality. He didn't say he was part of some sort of cycle. There's something beautiful about that simplicity. And needless to say, Rumi lived long before the Baha'is ever started.
It makes me wonder, will anyone ever watch the equivalent of a whirling dervish dance for the Baha'is?
The obsession with appearances sounds like a joke, but it isn't. It wasn't for me. Some bad stuff happened to me on my trip to Israel. When we got there, my parents didn't understand why I was so upset about everything. It was a culture shock, attending a local school, not speaking Hebrew, being lumped together with Russian kids who also didn't speak Hebrew, and getting beaten up in the toilet. It wasn't a very good time for me.
So, I was sent to counsel with a local Israeli counselor. After several sessions, she instructed that I had to sit down with my parents and tell them what I needed to tell them, particularly about the shadow that had come over me since coming to Israel. My parents were enraged when I said, “I wish we never became Bahai”.
And so, we returned from the Holy Land and moved to a tiny community that was struggling to get members. To this day, my parents are still members. I've resigned so I'm never dubbed a "covenant breaker." I'm pretty sure my parents know that I resigned because they literally never raise the topic of the Baha'i faith with me. I wish the religion had some interesting cosmology, something mystical, some interesting new take on the universe, or provided my family with tools to handle being migrants or raising teenagers. At the very least, it could have given us a common language we could have used to bond together. It did none of that.
But to be fair, if it wasn't the Baha'is, some other rinky-dink cult would have love-bombed my parents back in the 1980s. Of course, it would have been so much more fun if it had featured more sex and drugs 😊

Greetings!
We at Honor Games released award winning Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars modification Tiberium Secrets. We are now pursuing our first commercial titles.
We consist of passionate individuals striving to get into the games and entertainment industries, which has resulted in us networking with many developers and executives in the industry.
We're looking for dedicated individuals interested in continuing a new project with us.
You can learn more about us here:
Honorgames.co
~Opening: Lead writer~
We at Honor Games (based in Pacific standard time (GMT-8) are searching for a competent lead writer to take on the hands-on details of implementing world building and character backstories of the IP we create. As of now, we have 1 project in active development (vultures), 1 project in preproduction (charge!), and 1 project waiting for proper personnel support (Equation of Humanity).
As a writer myself, I’ve come to understand that I’m more interested and able to do the big picture writing and act as a “show runner.” I’m less interested in IMPLEMENTING the nitty gritty details myself. I’D SAY I’M GOOD AT DOING “THE BROAD BRUSH”, and I’d like to find a writing candidate to train into lead writer, and eventually narrative director for the company.
I have a psychology background, and I act as CEO an executive producer for the company and projects in question. I’ve also acted as lead writer and PR lead in the past. I’m specifically searching for narrative candidates who are able to run with an existing direction, stay within the limits of said direction, yet also synthesize concepts into a holistic picture in potentially novel ways.
We’re looking for a passionate and strong minded individual, a person who can articulate their position and work alongside other department leads. They will be able to act as a core leadership member and back up their perspective logically. They will be able to hold their ground, and lead a writing department that has yet to be staffed. They will be able to write and proof public relations posts as needed. They will be able to take notes for meetings they attend. They will be able to do effective research. Other duties as assigned.
~The only hard requirement I have, is that you need to have at least one finished and published work OUT IN THE WORLD.~
~PROJECT OVERVIEWS:~
~Vultures~ is a game that combines the elements of an economic and manufacturing simulator such as Factorio and Production Line. The game takes place in real time, with players put in charge of a manufacturing corporate empire. Players are responsible for buying plants and equipment, hiring labor, and buying and selling raw materials and finished goods.
Vultures aims to satirize corporate culture and the manufacturing process. Vultures will keep players engaged, switching between the two simulations to keep either one from becoming stale too quickly.
~Charge!~ is a first-person shooter (FPS) set in the future where there is peace on earth, and this sport is how most people entertain and advance themselves. All weapons are light based. and players will be able to choose different color classes, each with their own unique set of features.
The game is effectively laser tag with mirrors, prisms, and lenses. It can also be thought of as Portal with light-based puzzles.
To advance the first-person shooter (FPS) genre, by adding novel mechanics and unconventional weapons. Returning to the halcyon days of FPS, focusing on deathmatch and the multiplayer experience.
~Equation of Humanity (EoH)~ Is a concept for a real-time strategy (RTS) game in a science fiction setting. Players will take control of one of two armies, building bases, managing resources, and producing and commanding units in order to destroy other players and AI controlled factions on the battlefield. EoH started out as a mod for another RTS game (Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars) named Tiberium Secrets. The mod aimed to add three new armies, each with unique aesthetics and mechanics that separated them both from existing elements within the base game and from each other. Tiberium Secrets had a partial release to good reception, especially considering how old the base game was at the time. However, the limitations of the base game and its license eventually proved insurmountable, and the mod was canceled before a full release. The ASI faction was finalized and shipped, along with minor but fundamental changes to the original factions.
EoH seeks to pick up where Tiberium Secrets left off. Like its predecessor, EoH has plans for three armies with radically different designs. Using the power of the Unreal Engine, EoH will be free of the constraints of a mod and will be commercially available as a standalone product.
The factions come complete with diverse units, structures, mechanics, and lore. Players will take command of a global government faction intent on ensuring the survival of humanity without concern for red tape or ideologies or an artificial intelligence believing itself to be the next evolution of humanity.
This Game’s aim is to create an aesthetically pleasing, diverse and intriguing play-style for each faction, incorporating inspiration from many other works and real-world subjects. We also strive to recreate and surpass the original draw and impact of “Tiberium Secrets”. Striving to present theories of how the world/ universe works and operates.
Requirements:

• Excellent English communication skills (spoken and written).
• Positive influence and leadership skills - Motivates and energizes others
• Critical thinker
• Contract Signature
• Team Player
• Passionate and respectful
• Grit
• Initiative
• Keen attention to detail
• finish at least 1 shipped game / project/ book or equivalent
• Experience with Jira (Bonus)

Benefits:
This position gives the great chance to not only gain experience in your fields, but to also work together with highly motivated individuals in a team. It is required to give and take constructive criticism and simply push the designs to the limits to give the player the best gaming experience possible. In addition, we are focusing on creating high quality across the board, which means that you'll get great video material to publish on your blogs/websites to showcase your work. You can expect a solid foundation and work done in every area of development, since this is not our first project. The team leader may be a reference for future work relationships.
Professional networking and development opportunities are also critical to our success and if you invest in us, we will invest in you, both on a personal and professional level. As long as your committed to our core values and share knowledge and resources.
Required Time:
This position will require 10-15 hours per week. It is very important that you can react to emails and inquiries via smartphone or any other devices. We also have regular team meetings, which are required. Many of us have day jobs in addition to this commitment. You will be responsible for logging and reporting your hours, which will be regularly audited, for the purpose of determining fair Revenue share when the game ships.
We use Google Drive, Jira, Slack, Zoom and Email for the exchange of data and information. Further information can be given upon request.
Interested in working with us?

To Apply

If you’re interested and able Please email me [eric.chou@honorgames.co](mailto:eric.chou@honorgames.co)
Include: 1. Time zone 2. Portfolio/ writing samples 3. Introduction 4. name of your published work, and your biggest lesson learned

So I’m asking this because this morning my boss had a convo with my about my performance. I forget to end things, I’ve been taking a while to complete tasks etc. here’s more background:
I grew up well, had a happy childhood. I was naturally good in school without trying. Then in high school, they let a whole bunch of kids in that they shouldn’t have. They were awfully behaved and there seemed to be no consequences. This one guy didn’t even seem mentally fit for society.
One of the kids they let in was a family member that didn’t like me because her dad was always nice to me and my sibling and told her and her sibling to be more like us (not our fault and my mum wanted me to be more open and stuff like her but I never took that out on her).
Anyway, that girl told people that I used to hit her and this guy that liked her told that mentally unwell guy to start assaulting me which the guy did. This unwell guy was not that strong but I was so disgusted with him that I didn’t even want to lay a hand on the guy and also- it seemed like I was the only one who realised how unwell that guy was ??? Yall ever feel like you’re the only logical one in a huge group of people?? Anyway, I had to put up with worsening assault and them (my family member and the guy that liked her- they started dating) lying to my parents about everything and taking out of contexts photos to support their lies. The school wasn’t doing anything and they even admitted that they only let in these kids because they needed the money- this came out when general behaviour got so bad that they had an assembly with just our grade. They were clearly taking bribes from the unwell guy’s mother and I heard the teachers saying she didn’t want them telling his father. By the end of 11th grade, I was like a shell of myself. A zombie. My family member was telling my parents I was on shit or something and that I was a slut. I didn’t even want to go to our “prom” with anyone and I caught her and her bf outside MY house telling my mother that I want to go. This girl was obsessed with making people believe shit about me because of how unloved she was by her dad (he’s a nice guy but so complacent in all this)
They even had the guy enroll at the same university I went to. By then I was seriously afflicted with cptsd and daydreaming/dissociating was my coping mechanism. Then I met a guy in my transport who seemed to have a soft spot for girls and he beat up that unwell guy and finally I was left alone.
Fast forward and it’s years after university. I’m on social media and realising a lot of my giftedness as a kid is probably adhd/autism. I also know I have cptsd which shared symptoms of adhd. I used to have an excellent memory but since the school stuff, I don’t and I have a poor attention span.
Last year I got an internship and they renewed my contract as a junior consultant. They even gave me a raise in my internship. I was doing well but I’ve been dropping the ball. I spend a lot of time on social media and I forget to do a lot of things. Even when I’m not on my phone, I can’t seem to get my documents 100% and my boss has to constantly double check my work and send back for corrections. Today she brought it up but I feel like I don’t care? I feel like the world could fall a part around me. All I want to do is relax.
I’m writing this because I know what my boss brought up is important. I come from doing well to now having my performance questioned. I have been to therapy before but my parents absolutely don’t believe me when I talk about school. I had so many memories come back to me after dissociating them away and I that experience of re remembering was hectic for me too. I told my dad once again about everything and a month later he’s like “well it’s been a month, aren’t you better now?” These people don’t believe me. What’s the point of any of this? I don’t know what to do really.
Should I pretend to care about the world? My religion speaks of non-egoism and non-attachment. Maybe I should leave work behind and focus on spirituality. Maybe I’ll live my life with spiritual advancement as a goal and not what regular people want? What do you all think? Sorry this is so long. I wish I could voice note everything lol

The world conspired in the best of ways to bless me with a whole bunch of new games at once and I happened to be able to get in a lot of plays quickly with them.
Always get an idea of who's talking before you take anything away from these reviews/impressions. Maybe we're really different people. I've been in the hobby for 10+ years. I've played a lot of games. I love interactive and mechanically unique games. I worship Reiner Knizia. Some of my favorite games are Tigris and Euphrates, Spirit Island, Race for the Galaxy, Agricola, Battle Line, and Oath. My favorite games of last year were Stationfall, Ra (reprint), and Zoo Vadis.
Okay, let's go!
Cascadito/Cascadero - Is this a Pokemon Red/Blue scenario? No! There's room for both halves of this pair of Knizias in a collection. I think Cascadero is the better game, but Cascadito slides onto our table more easily. I'm a bit of a believer in the Moneyball theory of games (does the game "get on base" (to the table)?) so, that matters!
Cascadero - 4 plays at 2 players - First, the production is perfect. Svelte box that's easy to pack, wooden pieces, great graphic design with built in rules reminders by Ian O'Toole, and a striking cover make this a joy to play. If you enjoy the general waves hands of Irish Gauge, you're going to love how this looks.
Cascadero requires a little patience, but I think I'm starting to see a heart of gold down in there. As a Knizia tile-layer, right away, this game is, unfortunately, going to get compared to some of the greatest games ever made. Games like Through the Desert, Samurai, Babylonia, etc. I say unfortunately, because I don't think you'll love this game on the first play. That's because I think the default/starter side of the board is less interesting. If you're familiar with games, do yourself a favor and flip to the farmer side as soon as possible. Even then, Cascadero is subtle. When played best, it's a quiet maneuvering of cubes up to just the right spots on tracks with pieces on the board in all the right places that build a little lattice of opportunity. Not just one combo ready to score, but a set of circumstances that hedge on an opponent's move. Paths are everywhere, and you're using them in just the right ways to get across a double score gap or to slip into a fold in the track that gives an extra bonus. I feel like the review circuit doesn't usually play games enough times to appreciate this one, and maybe it's subtle to a fault. It isn't great when you hear "it gets good on game 4", but I'm four games in and usually that's the point where I'm bored of most games. With this one I'm excited to play more.
Cascadero is great!
Cascadito - 5 plays at 2 players - Do you like My City? Do you like My City: Roll and Build? I do. I probably wouldn't list them in my favorite games, but they are such great weeknight-with-the-partner games that I appreciate them all the same. Cascadito isn't billed as a campaign game, but rather as four maps. Maybe a 4 game campaign doesn't sound long enough, but I'm busy. 4 games sounds like something I can do. If you've played Cascadero, map 1 is the less interesting version of that game. Stick with it though! Like My City, you get the joy of seeing Knizia riff on an idea. We enjoyed each subsequent map more and more and we could see ourselves replaying #3 and especially #4. In fact, on map 4 we kept looking at each other's sheets during the game - on a roll and write! I like that.
Cascadito is good!
Spectral - 6 plays at 2 players - I'm pretty picky about deduction games, especially as board games. As someone who has put hundreds of hours into Picross and sudoku I need there to be a good reason why I'm using my precious time with my friends on something that is usually so solitary. So far, I've really only liked The Search for Planet X. While it isn't known as a particularly interactive game, my friends and I have played it so competitively that we look for any scrap of information that might give us the edge, and the publishing system cranks up the incentive to take some leaps of faith in a tight race.
When I heard about Spectral I was excited - an interactive, bidding based logic puzzle - cool! Six games later, I haven't really figured out how to interact with my opponent. While The Search for Planet X has clear moments of intention to watch for (publishing papers), it's really hard to tell when your opponent is acting with intention or just exploring in Spectral. You also don't have those little clues like what your opponent is scanning for or researching like in Planet X to build some kind of theory around. The game is a breeze to play, yet barely leaves room to grapple. So maybe the interaction isn't super strong, but how's the logic puzzle?
Boring. Imagine playing sudoku, but the logic restrictions were only for rows and not also columns, or within squares. You can do some deduction with the curse cards, but the treasure cards (12 of the 16) are all essentially equally informative and don't allow for much in the way of chains of deduction. You can do a little bit with probabilities of where treasures are likely to overlap, but it rarely feels worth it to pursue when finding curses provides a much more reliable benefit.
I want to be wrong about this game. Please, someone argue this one with me.
Spectral is okay. If you play it once or twice, I think you'll have a good time, but I don't see it having legs.
Slay the Spire - I've had this game for less than a month and I think I've put in maybe 50 hours at the table with it at this point. I've played with people who have 1000s of hours in Slay the Spire - they have loved it. I've played with people who have never played Slay the Spire - I see them playing Slay the Spire on Steam the next day and asking when they can next come over. People who usually duck out of a game night at 10pm are still at the table at 1am.
I was really worried it would be bad. I wondered, why not just play the digital game? But here I am, holding the box and knowing without a doubt, this object sparks joy. Have you ever experienced a solitary piece of media, obsessed over it, and then gotten a chance to experience it together with other fans? Maybe something like watching Game of Thrones with friends after reading the books. It feels great to share in something you've loved. That's how Slay the Spire has felt. But it's not just that, as evidenced by the friends that have never played the digital game and still loved it. It's just a damn good deck builder, and the whole system of knowing exactly what the enemies are going to do before they do it goes over so well here. It's so apparent that this translation was a labor of love and so much has gone into preserving the spirit of the game. I love it.
Slay the Spire is excellent!
Leviathan Wilds - played the first 3 Leviathans solo and at 2 - I backed this as a Shadow of the Colossus fan, and hoped for the best. I'm honestly blown away by how much this game has exceeded my expectations. First, there's something about this game that feels so complete and efficient. There's no Kickstarter bloat. It's in a very understated, retail sized box. The game just gets so much out of each component. It feels like the people who made it have made a lot of games before (and they have!).
I have trouble finding mid-weight 1-hour co-ops that I like. I love co-ops like The Crew at the short and sweet end and Spirit Island at the epic and heavy end, but the games that hit around the Pandemic range have never appealed to me. There often seems to be too much upkeep and setup, and not enough to keep me interested in sharing a puzzle with other people.
Leviathan Wilds is sooooo easy to set up. Setting up a Leviathan involves opening a spiral bound map book and laying out five cards. Processing the enemy turn involves flipping a card and later doing what it says. I don't play solo games, pretty much ever, but I'm playing this solo because it's so damn easy to run.
The moment to moment gameplay has been a blast. The systems are very open and freeform and the cards are multi-use, so there's often this feeling of scrapping together just the thing you need from odd parts - burning this card, eating this mushroom, falling here, etc. The movement system really leans into the mechanics of Shadow of the Colossus and allows for a creativity and freedom while reinforcing the theme. Every game we've played has been tight and we've failed a few times. I like that. My only complaint was that the enemies will sometimes do "swift" moves that resolve before your turn so you don't have much of a chance to react. I didn't realize until a game or two later that you can still use skills on cards to react instantly which might be an easy rule to miss. I've felt much better about "swift" since learning that. I'll definitely be backing the announced small expansion for the upcoming reprint. What a pleasant surprise.
Leviathan Wilds is excellent!
Harmonies - 6 plays at 2 players - This game has been called a Reef killer, an Azul killer, and a Cascadia killer. I own all those games! So, what's the body count at my table? Well, first off this game is lovely. The art is beautiful, the spatial puzzle is quite satisfying, and the playtime is breezy (especially at 2). It is most comparable to Reef in that you are arranging and stacking pieces in configurations for points, but there's a second layer of tile arrangement, similar to Cascadia's habitats, that's always present, no matter what cards come up. The Azul comparison is probably due to the drafting of tiles from a central market. So, what's the outcome?:

• Reef - Dead. Harmonies gives me a similar spatial puzzle in less time, in a smaller box, with better art, and it feels more thematic (I want to make homes for all my animals!).
• Cascadia - Dead. (although I was tired of it already). I find the game to game strategies in Harmonies to be more diverse and I don't feel like I have an algorithm to follow like in Cascadia (Is there a tile that increases two habitats? Can I fit a fox between my other groups of animals?).
• Azul - Alive. It's a stretch to compare the two games, but the drafting portion is far more interesting in Azul with the combining pools of tiles. Azul sits with Carcassonne in this perfect zone of being a gateway game that starts out gentle and puzzley and more you play it the more cutthroat it becomes. This isn't Harmonies, but...

Harmonies is excellent. I wouldn't be surprised if its the best gateway type game of the year. I do think it could slow down significantly with more players, but I tend to play something more interactive beyond 2.
Dro Polter - Too many plays to count and at all player counts - I think this is Oink's cutest production yet. The chunky wooden ghost, the tiny bells, the little set of treasures you'll hold in your hand. If you like frantic dexterity games, this is great. You can explain the rules in about 2 sentences and it's very non-gamer friendly. The cleverest bit is how you have to hold onto points in the form of tiny bells and if you drop them you lose them. It's an excellent system of handicapping the leader that often turns to laughs. It's mostly a novelty, but if you can introduce it to a few different groups of people, it feels worth it. Great with kids too.
Dro Polter is great!

Hey all, so in the story I'm writing, I'm doing the whole "collection of different writers" where the story is told through written records of different characters in the fictional world.
Currently, there are two narrations. The main one is of the main character, who wrote about events in his youth and then published it into a book series that was used in the collection. This one is strictly kept in past tense so it isn't an issue.
The second narration is of another character in the form of a journal/diary that she used to narrate what happened to her at the end of her days. I use her to tell the story in another perspective, especially when the main character isn't presented or when I don't want readers to know his thoughts and schemes at certain moments.
Problem is I don't know if mixing the second narration in past and present tense would be too confusing. To the second character, she's telling the story as it has just happened and she would very often input her commentaries. The stories she told are in past tense and the commentaries/facts are in present tense. Should I use line break every time she does this, or just keeping her comments in the same paragraph? Does this show the desired effect of presenting her internal struggles at the time she's writing the diary or should I just give up on mixing tenses altogether? What do you guys think about this? Example below:
Thinking I could at least salvage clothes and maybe useful goods belonged to the dead, I set forth to the other side of the canyon. Not much could be reused. Blood-stained clothes were simply too much work for me. Magic swords, great conditions and all, weren’t my style. I could have gathered and traded them to canyon camp at later date, for Tullius would accept weapons at all cost. No, I should not. Despite how low I’m willing to stoop for survival, a warrior’s weapon is not something deserves that kind of disgraceful treatments. I wouldn’t want it to happen to my own sword when I die.

FIST OF THE RUBY PHOENIX BOOK SPOILERS AHEAD
I want to share with you the story of Yamada Toro, my Kitsune Bard. They were an asshole. An absolutely cynical asshole who didn’t care for friendship, who used their Haikus to insult their opponents, who was only entering the tournament for the prize money. This was to the chagrin of Kailani, the Dwarf Kinesist, and Dekhana, the Vanara Monk, who were much more idealistic and were convinced that Yamada would learn about the power of friendship throughout the tournament.
And, for the first two books, they were wrong. Yamada pretty much went through the entirety of the tournament not caring about the other teams and took delight in harming them using magic. Perhaps, if things had turned out differently, perhaps they would have been recruited into the Lightkeepers instead. After all, despite being on opposing teams and hating each other, Yamada and the Lightkeepers had very similar attitudes to life.
Everything changed when King Mogaru attacked.
Witnessing the destruction of Gorka, seeing Syndara trap Hao Jin in the hourglass led Yamada on the slow journey of being a better person. Yes, they were still sassy and had a lot of quips. But, for the first time ever, they began to reevaluate everything that they felt and believed, which continued to change further when they were chosen as the next celestial envoy. We got the dragon’s blessing and headed to Syndara’s semi plane to challenge him head on.
….. and this is when I decided to try something really silly.
I saw the tenth level Fabricated Truth spell and saw that on a critical failure forces the target to believe a single statement for an unlimited duration and I decided to try casting it once during the fight. I was under no illusion that this would work. After all, Yamada’s spell save DC was a 44 (after getting the Troubador’s cap). The boss would have to roll a 34 for it to work. I decided to give it a go anyways, casting Bon Mot on him to give him a -2 to Will Saves.
The statement I went for? “I wish to seek atonement for everything that I have done.”
He rolled a 34 on a 2, and because my DM doesn’t like Incapacitation rules Syndara crit failed the Will save. He spent the rest of the fight under the Frightened 3 status effect as he was suddenly struggling with the guilt and remorse that he felt for everything that he had done. He wasn’t a threat in the end, and after beating his second phase our DM created a third phase for us where he had 1 HP, 15 AC and he was utterly broken after everything.
We chose to spare him. He let us free Hao Jin and, for the first time in a long time, Syndara and her could be friends.
If Yamada was writing this now, they would say that Kailani and Dekhana were right. Sometimes, stretching out a hand in friendship is important. Yes, one day there is a chance that the Fabricated Truth spell will wear off. But it gives Syndara the chance to grow, to recover from everything that he has been through and perhaps create something beautiful out of it. This probably was the first kind thing that they did throughout the whole of the Ruby Phoenix, and because of this they were able to perform a miracle and allow Syndara to live in one instance of Golarion.
(Though they’d probably write the above in a Haiku. They are still a pretentious bard after all)
Anyways, as someone who knew very little about Anime going into this campaign I had an absolute blast and I’m still in absolute disbelief that that actually worked. Now I need to learn how rangers and awakened animals work so I can play a military obsessed awakened pigeon in Wardens of Wildwood.

As a non-EU national, here are some notes from my personal VFS experiences:
Online appointment

1. You don't need to provide all docs when booking a Schengen visa appointment. You can do it parallelly i.e. secure an appointment, and use the days leading up to it to gather and print all necessary docs + copies of everything including expired passports + visas.
2. Be careful NOT to keep refreshing the page (no matter how tempting it is) because there's a limit and if you cross it, you will be penalised. You will be asked to refresh your browser cache/cookies and/or wait for 2 hours. You can try to use a dummy email for the refreshing so that when you see a slot open up, you simply log in with your real one and then book the slot. Sometimes when you log in repeatedly, it doesn't let you log in for a while. Don't be alarmed. Try using multiple devices or network connections.
3. Slots open up randomly and it's hard to predict the pattern. I noticed it opened up 1x every 15-17 days in the evening around 6 pm. If you can afford to go to another city, you may be able to find slots at other VFS centres in the country that receive less volume. I had been checking everyday for an entire month and a half before I managed to get a slot.
4. It will NOT show you all available slots but they do exist (!!!). Don't fall for this terrible UI/UX dark pattern. The moment you see it a slot is available on XXX date. Click on the button because they actually have more slots in a calendar once you progress to that page. A lot of people don't realize this and wait for all dates to show up on the first screen. So even if you are not sure about the date it shows, that's fine. You will be able to see calendar availability for the next ~2 weeks and also be able to choose the time slot in the morning, afternoon, etc.
5. Appointment confirmation takes time once you reach the payment page and you may not get an email right away. The first attempt was rejected and no money was deducted thankfully. But it told me to check in 5 hours. When I did, I had no confirmation on my Dashboard. I tried again and used another payment method which deducted my money. But still not confirmation. After about 2 hours, I checked my dashboard and it was confirmed. Still no email confirmation. I had to manually re-send the booking confirmation.
6. The DOB on my appointment confirmation on VFS portal was incorrect even though I put the right one. The code is messed up because it showed the date of booking minus 1 year as my DOB. Don't worry if this happens. Go to your appointment. (All the money they take and they can't fix this bug). This happens if you don't book their Insurance - and I didn't. The poor design might make it seem like that's a required step, but it's not.
7. Once you get an appointment, the window to reschedule is small but you will not lose your existing slot if you do click the button to explore the options.

At the centre

1. Poor design extends IRL where they don't have clear signages making people think that the Premium Lounge is the only option. The person told me that I would have to pay a horrendous amount of about 155 EUR / 168 USD (which wasn't listed on the website). I said no thanks. They tried to convince me by saying that lounge doesn't have a queue. I told her to tell me where the regular booth was. Surprise surprise. There was no queue there either. It's just a trick for you to pay as much money as possible.
2. Queues for uncommon or less mainstream countries like Luxembourg, Slovenia, Croatia, Poland were practically empty for the first 2 hours in the morning and less crowded. Popular countries like France, Italy, and Germany were packed by 10.30 am with only a few seats available. This is also the section that has more seats and more booths due to the volume of applicants.
3. Even if you have all copies and all documents, be prepared for them to stump you because it's unlikely the experience will be frictionless. Your photo won't work if you are wearing glasses or the background isn't white etc etc etc. It seems like their mandate is to not accept applications on the first go. Even when I have had all the documents and all copies, there's been something that they bring up. Eg. "the visa processing time is 60 days" but when I booked my appointment, it was 15-20 days on the website (I still have 45 days though). The person told me that they would have to ask the manager (but that never happened). They made me write a declaration stating I was made aware of this by the personnel. I mean, it's a bit ridiculous. As it is, you barely get an appointment, when you do the instructions differ from when you actually go there. So, there's really no winning.
4. Apparently their Trustpilot feedback is fake. Even if you write something, chances are it will get overshadowed by bots. There was a case about how they manipulated this overnight.
5. Make sure your docs and bookings have YOUR NAME on everything, dates, locations (with addresses for accommodation), and phone number and email of the places. Once you submit this, they will "verify" and make you wait. I literally saw one of the dudes behind the counter playing with my passport smh.
6. Your name will be called and you will get a slip (this means they have accepted your application) which includes tracking information etc. You will need to go make the payment. After this, go BACK TO THE COUNTER where you submitted docs. Collect your folder and proceed to the biometric room. Don't sit, give the person your receipt/slip and wait in the queue. Your name will be called to do the biometric stuff. After this, you have to, once again, GO BACK to the counter and submit your folder with your documents and passport. Then, we wait and hope for the best.
7. Do your research and get receipts and printouts of EVERYTHING because I wouldn't trust the people behind the counter to do their due diligence. I mean EVERYTHING. If you intend to take an internal train or a public bus, print out the train schedule and put it in there. If you intend to go to another country that allows visa-free entry for valid Schengen visa holders, take a printout of that Embassy's notice and put it in. I can't stress this enough. Get proof and documentation for everything you possibly can.
8. FYI Some countries say it has to be your "first" port of entry and/or "main destination". Some countries will only accept if it is your MAIN destination i.e. longest duration of stay. Check relevant sites and be careful!

IDK if this goes to show how cumbersome the process is but it is almost always unpleasant and borderline traumatic. I feel for the people who don't know any better, who have to rely on some agent, or in general are unable to see through the BS. The monopoly enables them to play God and while their job should be to pass on your docs and application, they seem to exercise their own discretionary power to make it hell for people who don't know better. Meh.
I have never left a VFS appointment feeling good about anything. I don't think the Premium Lounge would have helped to solve this either. I hope the VFS monopoly dies and the Schengen Visa digitisation makes this easier. Good luck and hang in there.

"Who will write my network administration assignment" is a common query among students grappling with complex coursework. As essential as network administration is to university operations, it's understandable that some students may seek assistance in understanding and completing their assignments in this field. If you're facing challenges with your network administration assignments, reaching out to knowledgeable peers, tutors, or academic resources can provide valuable support and guidance. By engaging with these resources, you can enhance your understanding of network administration concepts and excel in your studies. Remember, seeking help when needed is a proactive step toward academic success.

The Role of Network Administration

Universities today rely heavily on robust network infrastructures to support a myriad of activities, including online learning, research collaborations, administrative functions, and campus-wide communications. Network administrators are tasked with:

• Infrastructure Management: Designing, implementing, and maintaining the campus network infrastructure, including routers, switches, and access points.
• Security: Ensuring network security through firewalls, VPNs, and intrusion detection systems to protect sensitive data and prevent unauthorized access.
• Troubleshooting: Resolving connectivity issues, diagnosing network outages, and providing technical support to users.
• Capacity Planning: Anticipating future network needs and scaling the infrastructure accordingly to support growing demand.

Challenges Faced by Network Administrators

Maintaining a reliable and secure network in a university environment comes with its challenges:

• Diverse User Base: Supporting thousands of users with varying levels of technical proficiency and device types.
• Bandwidth Demands: Meeting the high bandwidth demands of multimedia-rich applications and online learning platforms.
• Cybersecurity Threats: Protecting against cyber threats such as malware, phishing attacks, and data breaches.
• Budget Constraints: Balancing the need for network upgrades with limited financial resources.

The Impact of Network Administration on Campus Life

Efficient network administration enhances the overall campus experience:

• Enhanced Learning and Research: Provides reliable access to online resources, e-books, academic journals, and collaborative tools for students and researchers.
• Administrative Efficiency: Supports administrative functions such as student registration, grading, and financial transactions.
• Communication: Facilitates seamless communication through email, messaging platforms, and video conferencing tools.
• Accessibility: Ensures that campus services, including disability services and online learning platforms, are accessible to all students.

The Role of Assignment Help Websites

In managing the complexities of network administration, universities and students alike often turn to assignment help websites to support their academic needs. These platforms provide assistance with:

• Complex Assignments: Help in completing challenging network administration assignments and projects.
• Expert Guidance: Access to experienced professionals who can provide insights and solutions to network administration problems.
• Time Management: Assistance in managing coursework deadlines and balancing academic responsibilities.
• Quality Assurance: Ensures that assignments are completed to a high standard, meeting academic requirements.

Conclusion

Network administration is vital for maintaining a connected campus environment that supports learning, research, and administrative functions. As universities continue to rely on technology for their day-to-day operations, the role of network administrators becomes increasingly critical. By leveraging assignment help websites, students can navigate the complexities of network administration coursework while focusing on their academic and personal growth.
For more information on network administration and academic support, visit ComputerNetworkAssignmentHelp.com.

Saturday 18 May 2024
Today in Philosophy of History
Further Elaborations on the Coming Coeval Age
My essay “The Coming Coeval Age” has appeared in Isonomia Quarterly for summer 2024. Last year I contributed an essay to the initial number of the journal. As with my recent paper in the Journal of Big History, “A Complexity Ladder for Big History,” this most recent essay isn’t narrowly about philosophy of history, but there are many philosophy of history themes in it.
The journal’s interest in the theme of isonomia was my point of departure for considering the institutional structure of civilization at the largest conceivable scales. What is isonomia? There is a passage in Book III of Herodotus known as the constitutional debate in which three speakers argue for the best form of government, with these three being monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. Here is the first of three speakers in Herodotus advocating for isonomia:

“Otanes urged that they should resign the government into the hands of the whole body of the Persians, and his words were as follows: ‘To me it seems best that no single one of us should henceforth be ruler, for that is neither pleasant nor profitable. Ye saw the insolent temper of Cambyses, to what lengths it went, and ye have had experience also of the insolence of the Magian: and how should the rule of one alone be a well-ordered thing, seeing that the monarch may do what he desires without rendering any account of his acts? Even the best of all men, if he were placed in this disposition, would be caused by it to change from his wonted disposition: for insolence is engendered in him by the good things which he possesses, and envy is implanted in man from the beginning; and having these two things, he has all vice: for he does many deeds of reckless wrong, partly moved by insolence proceeding from satiety, and partly by envy. And yet a despot at least ought to have been free from envy, seeing that he has all manner of good things. He is however naturally in just the opposite temper towards his subjects; for he grudges to the nobles that they should survive and live, but delights in the basest of citizens, and he is more ready than any other man to receive calumnies. Then of all things he is the most inconsistent; for if you express admiration of him moderately, he is offended that no very great court is paid to him, whereas if you pay court to him extravagantly, he is offended with you for being a flatterer. And the most important matter of all is that which I am about to say:—he disturbs the customs handed down from our fathers, he is a ravisher of women, and he puts men to death without trial. On the other hand the rule of many has first a name attaching to it which is the fairest of all names, that is to say “Equality”; next, the multitude does none of those things which the monarch does: offices of state are exercised by lot, and the magistrates are compelled to render account of their action: and finally all matters of deliberation are referred to the public assembly. I therefore give as my opinion that we let monarchy go and increase the power of the multitude; for in the many is contained everything’.”

The three forms of government—monarchical, oligarchical, and democratic—are a perennial theme of Greek political thought that continues to echo through the history of Western civilization. Book III of Aristotle’s Politics goes into this in some detail.
After sending my essay off to Isonomia Quarterly I realized that one of the fundamental ambiguities about the idea of isonomia—and I would have included a footnote on this if I had thought of it sooner—is the ambiguity implicit in speaking in terms of the same law. What is it that is “the same” when we speak of the same law? “The same law” could mean that every particular law would apply to every particular person, or “the same law” could mean that the totality of the law, that is, the whole body of law, applies to the totality of the population. A body of law might involve different laws that apply differently to different persons, so that the second of the two senses does not entail the first of the two senses. If you read my essay you’ll find that I argue that the Greeks understood isonomia in the latter sense, so I won’t repeat that argument or the sources I cite for it here. But the fact that we might interpret a fundamental political idea in different ways poses the question of how these fundamental ideas outlined in antiquity apply to us today, if they do apply, and how they ought to apply now and in the future.
How will these traditional ideas be interpreted in future iterations of human society that might differ quite considerably from the world that we inhabit? How are we to understand isonomia within the context of a spacefaring civilization? For that matter, how are we to understand any classical Greek political theory in the context of future changes to society? For Westerners, this is our heritage, and how this tradition adapts or is adapted to changed conditions will give shape to the ongoing tradition of Western civilization.
In my essay I suggest that, on Earth to date, the expansion of political regimes has constituted what I call synchronic isonomia, when societies are distributed synchronically, that is to say, when they interact in the present across geographical distances. In a specifically legal context, this means the iteration of a body of law across a region of space. The possibility of what Frank White calls Large-Scale Space Migration would initially constitute synchronic expansion on a scale greater than that possible on Earth, but, if continued, it would eventually cross a threshold of diachronic isonomia, that is to say, when societies are distributed diachronically over time. In a specifically legal context, again, this means the iteration of a body of law, the same law, over a period of time. The strange, seemingly paradoxical aspect of this way of thinking is that the human scale of time could be distributed over a much larger cosmological scale of time while retaining its character as distinctively human history. I will try to explain how this could come about, but first I want to point out a peculiarity of terrestrial history that we haven’t seen as a peculiarity.
We are familiar with the idea that we see the universe form a peculiar point of view because we see it from the surface of a planet. Our planetary perspective has been the focus of the Copernican revolution, which has taught us that our apparently centrality in the universe is an artifact of our limited and parochial perspective. The Copernican revolution taught us to transcend our planetary perspective and to see the universe from a non-terrestrial perspective, but there is another aspect of the Copernican revolution that we haven’t yet explored, and that is seeing history from a non-terrestrial perspective. Part of this non-terrestrial perspective is simply to understand that, just as we are not in the center of space, we are also not in the center of time. But there’s more to it than this.
Einstein’s theory of relativity has made it possible for us to see time in a new way, and this can change the way we see history. In many of my episodes I have talked about the need to address the disconnect between philosophies of time and philosophies of history. History is constructed out of time, so a radical reconceptualization of time suggests a radical reconceptualization of history. The theory of relativity is such a radical reconceptualization of time, but many of the influences of relativity and gravity upon time are usually not noticed on a terrestrial scale, and all human history to date has occurred on terrestrial scale.
We can see the effects of relativity when we look out into the cosmos and use instruments to observe cosmological distances over which relatively is relevant, and to observe bodies so dense that they change the structure of spacetime. To date, our technologies have allowed us to measure the relativity of time under the influence of acceleration and gravitation, but we may, at some point in our history, develop technologies that allow us to interact with the universe at a scale at which relativity will change our history. When this eventuality comes to pass, we will eventually be forced to notice things about our history that hadn’t previously been problematic.
Our history to date has been the simplest possible history because it has all transpired on Earth. Earth is our sole inertial frame of reference for all historical events. There are relativistic effects within this inertial frame of reference, but they can only be detected by instruments of extreme precision because the influence of relativity lies below the threshold of human perception. For example, every planet drags its spacetime around with it as it rotates, which is known as frame-dragging. And even the relatively crude instruments of the nineteenth century could detect the perihelion precession of Mercury, which is an observable relativistic perturbation of the orbit of Mercury. This was first observed and noted to diverge from Newtonian predictions in 1859. These relativistic effects are, however, well below the threshold of impacting human history.
Technologies could change this. Relativistic space travel would be such a technology. This has been made famous by the so-called “twins paradox.” The twins paradox is invoked with greatest effect by the use of individuals to illustrate the difference between two clocks in different inertial frames of reference—usually a set of twins. This was called a paradox because it was initially thought to be impossible. We also saw this use of individuals to demonstrate the poignancy of time dilation in the film Interstellar. Here it is a father and daughter who are separated, with the father experiencing an accelerated inertial frame of reference, so that he returns, still a young man, to find his daughter dying as an old woman. This is great for drama, but this isn’t how any relativistic space settlement effort is going to play out, unless someone purposefully arranges something like this as a stunt.
Let us consider a simple example of what is more likely to occur. Suppose a settlement on another world established by several thousands of individuals, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands, like a small city, who travel to another planetary system, tens or hundreds or thousands of light years from Earth. The passengers on the starship in their accelerated inertial framework will experience time dilation, and they will preserve the cultural milieu of Earth has it was upon their launch. When they establish their settlement, there will be two human histories that bifurcate at the point in time when the interstellar settlement initiative was inaugurated.
However, the larger population on Earth will continue to drive cultural evolution at a far faster rate than in the settlement, while, in the settlement, human beings will be subjected to radically different selection pressures than prevailed on Earth, and they will also be a small community likely to retain the cultural milieu they possessed when they left Earth. We would then have two human histories, offset in time by the discontinuity of the relativistic travel time from Earth to the location of the settlement. For example, if the Earth and the settlement are a hundred light years apart, there would be a temporal discontinuity of a century. Life would go on at Earth, and a century later things would be different, but a century later the settlement would just be founded on the basis of Earth’s culture of a century before. This is a kind of historical complexity that we do not have today, but which could happen in the future.
Now imagine not one settlement, but a hundred or a thousand such settlements, each representing a temporal discontinuity from Earth’s history. A hundred settlements of ten thousand persons each would be an effort involving only a million persons, which is a very small proportion of the total human population; Earth wouldn’t even notice the absence of a million persons. Further, imagine travel among these settlements by relativistic spacecraft, and then the history of those who travel between settlements will be even more complex. In this context, depending upon the location of settlements relative to each other, and the date at which the settlement initiative was undertaken, an individual could effectively time travel into the past by traveling outward from Earth to a settlement that preserves the historical milieu at Earth at the time of its departure. You could not return to Earth without finding yourself accelerated into the future, but you could travel further outward to a settlement established from earlier in Earth’s history.
We get a similar, if slower result, if we substitute sub-relativistic spacecraft in conjunction with artificially induced torpor or hibernation—space arks, if you will. A slow boat to the stars would likewise preserve the culture of Earth from the time of its departure, with settlers being roused and resuming their lives once they reached the end of their journey, effectively cut off from a return to their familiar terrestrial milieu, but they would be able to visit other historical peer milieux if they take another slow boat further out into the cosmos.
The kind of distributed temporality that I am describing would achieve its greatest extent, and its greatest historical complexity, in the case of interstellar expansion. However, something similar could be realized on Earth at a smaller scale. Imagine a large scale hibernation project on Earth, such that about 10,000 persons are involved, enough so that there could be a rotating crew of a dozen or so that stays awake to tend the rest to make sure this continues to operate as intended. At some appointed time in the future, the whole community could be brought out of their hibernation and they would bring with them the culture of Earth from their date when they entered into hibernation, now displaced into the future. This would make it possible for temporally distributed communities to appear on Earth, without travel to other worlds or the use of relativistic technology. There are several science fiction stories with something like this as their approximate premise.
Whether through relativistic travel or human hibernation, historical communities could be preserved from all eras into some indefinite future, and in that indefinite future, these distinct historical communities would be synchronically present. This is what I call coevalism, when all ages of history are equally accessible. The idea of coevalism occurred to me many years ago, and not in connection with relativistic travel; I was thinking about the increasing fidelity of recording technologies. Written language is the most rudimentary form of recording technology, and is allows us the most rudimentary form of time travel, by being able to share the thoughts of those long dead. Since the industrial revolution, technologies have become much more sophisticated, with photographs, film, and sound recordings, with always-increasing fidelity to the original.
The rapid growth of computer technology and telecommunications in recent decades has made us aware that, if this arc of technological development continues, we will have nearly-perfect fidelity recordings. But in addition to recordings, we could generate states-of-affairs that never existed in fact, as in fantasy and science fiction, or we could generate the milieux of the past, both with a degree of fidelity equal to that of the present. Computers are already sufficiently sophisticated to generate simple films, and the reconstruction of past milieux can be done without computers as well.
In the original Westworld film on 1973, a past milieu was re-created using robots. Robotics hasn’t yet achieved this level of realism, but we could do this today with human actors, and we may yet do so someday with robots. In fact, we do this in a limited way. Theme parks re-create fantasy worlds populated with actors who make fantasy characters come to life. So coevalism can be realized at smaller scales than sparefaring civilizations, but it would be in a spacefaring civilizations with relativistic space travel in which the possibilities of coevalism would come to their fullest expression, and in which history would achieve its greatest complexity.
History is already extraordinarily complex, but I said earlier than our terrestrial history is the simplest history possible given the spacetime structure of the universe. It is when we begin distributing our civilization in cosmological time that historical complexity will cease to be a single linear continuum. The possibilities of spacefaring histories will be both facilitated and limited by our technology. These possibilities will also be facilitated and limited by the actual spacetime structure of the universe, which is a function of the distribution of matter in the universe. Just as terrestrial history has been shaped by oceans, mountain ranges, and rivers, cosmological history is shaped by stars, gravitation, and expansion, and human history that takes place within this cosmological context will be shaped by these forces. The point I want to make is that, while human history is complex, we are not necessarily limited by the complexity of the single inertial frame of reference of our homeworld.
When multiple inertial frames of reference are available to us, and travel between then is possible, the possible structures of history will dramatically expand, and with these possibilities human experience will dramatically expand, and I hope you can see how this can give a whole new meaning to the idea of speculative philosophy of history. In the conventional distinction between analytical philosophy of history and substantive philosophy of history, analytical philosophy of history is, according to Danto, “…philosophy applied to the special conceptual problems which arise out of the practice of history,” while substantive philosophy of history is a philosophical account of the historical process itself. This same distinction has also been called the distinction between critical and speculative philosophy of history by William Dray, and the distinction between formal and material philosophy of history by Maurice Mandelbaum. Here I emphasize speculative philosophy of history as that which reflects uon the actual historical process.
In addition to the speculative philosophy of history that considers the historical process, we can also imagine a speculative philosophy of history that concerns itself with the implications of speculative states-of-affairs upon history yet to come—historical processes not yet realized, but which may be realized someday. Many of the speculative states-of-affairs I can imagine involve human exploration and expansion into the cosmos. The speculative states-of-affairs we might encounter in the wider universe could involve scientific discoveries not yet made and technologies not yet constructed, the histories of life on other worlds and the histories of alien civilizations, as well as the histories that we will create for ourselves. It’s a big universe, and we might discover any number of unlikely or unprecedented existents.
In my episode on a complexity ladder for big history I argued that there may be distinctive emergents from historical knowledge, that is to say, the quantitative growth of historical knowledge may pass a threshold to become a qualitative change in historical understanding. What kind of emergents could these be? For example, an increase in the knowledge of our own history can change our understanding of ourselves. We are seeing this with the use of the genetic record to reconstruct the sequence by which human beings distributed themselves across Earth. In this way, epistemic emergents reshape our past and our understanding of ourselves.
In addition to these emergents from knowledge of our past, there may yet come emergents that arise from a temporally distributed civilization and the advent of coevalism. A temporally distributed civilization could also give rise to emergents in historical knowledge. The dawning realization of epistemic emergents yet to come in the future will shape our conception of what we can become (in contradistinction to increased knowledge of the past shaping what we are), reshaping our future, and we will need these epistemic emergents from a history of a greater order of complexity so as to understand the more complex world coming into being, and which our descendants will inhabit. Without these epistemic emergents we would not be able to understand the more complex world arising out of these novel technologies and the world they will bring into being. The future of philosophy of history has never been brighter, as we see that it will come to grappled with ever-larger and more complex problems.

Video Presentation

Youtube: https://youtu.be/fvmCoRrBiEs
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/C7IUqNAtSgQ/
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/the-coming-coeval-age:d

Podcast Edition

Spotify: https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/xkVzIKAcIJb
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/de1bbc0c-a72f-452b-a20d-40ccd56889e0/today-in-philosophy-of-history-the-coming-coeval-age
Iheartradio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/the-coming-coeval-age-177527570/
​

Hi Leetcoders! I wanted to share a successful profile of someone that landed jobs at Meta, Google, and Microsoft with 2 YOE and a Master's degree.
The interview journey is long and difficult. Reviewing someone else's successful interview preparation process and the interview questions they were asked could be super useful to prepare for your own interviews.
Take a break from Leetcode and let's see how they achieved it.
YOE: 2
Previous Company: JP Morgan
Highest Education: Master's
Background: Fullstack Software Engineer

Interview Preparation

Behavioral

• YT videos by Dan Croitor
• Understand various Leadership principles.
• Go through your Resume and write stories following STAR approach Your story should project at-least one of the attribute such as taking lead, resolving conflicts, dealing with ambiguity etc..
• Read, Rehearse and Repeat.

Technical
Coding

• Leetcode
  • Would recommend buying premium subscription. It's worth it.
  • Try to do daily Leetcode challenges. It helps you in being consistent and also covers variety of problems.
  • I used Explore card of Google and Facebook and tried to solve most of the problems.
  • Top 100 questions by frequency.
  • Top 75 LC curated: https://leetcode.com/list/xi4ci4ig/
• Cracking the Coding Interview book
• YT channels/videos:
  • Data Structure lectures by Abdul Bari
  • Graph Theory by Willian Fiset
• Few Tips:
  • Try to solve a problem by yourself, even if you are not able to come-up with an optimal solution.
  • Think about time and space complexity of your solution. Identify sections which can be optimised and think of a better solution/ data structure.
  • After understanding the approach, try to implement it yourself without taking a look at code. This would help you in really understanding the concept.
  • Try to beat 90% of solutions by runtime.

System Design

• Book: DDIA (MUST READ if targeting Google)
• Book: System Design Interview by Alex Xu
• System Design Primer by Donne Martin
• Courses - Groking the System Design and Groking the Advanced System Design
• YT:
  • System Design Interview videos by Mikhail Smarshchok.
  • InfoQ videos and presentations
  • Go through Architecture of popular systems such as GFS, Kafka, Cassandra etc.

Interview Experiences

Accepted: Meta, Google, Microsoft
Rejected: Uber, Atlassian

Meta

Only did Leetcode daily challenges this month and went through 10-15 FB tagged problems(sorted by frequency) before the interview. Spent 1-2 days in preparing for behavioural round as well (writing stories following STAR approach).
Had 2 coding + 1 product design + 1 behavioural round with Facebook.
In 1 coding round I had to solve 2 LC mediums and in other round 1 LC easy and 1 LC Hard was given. Solved all 4 problems. These were all variations of FB tagged problems on Leetcode and if you have solved them, it's fairly easy. Yep, FB is very predictable w.r.t. coding.I had very strong feedback for 2 coding rounds, good feedback for behavioural but my product design round didn't meet E5 expectations. This was I believe happened due to following reasons:

• Never did a mock-up before or gave any product design interview before. This was the first time for me in an interview setup so was a bit nervous a well. I would highly recommend doing some mock interviews.
• I had prepared extensively for system design which focuses heavily on the system side (Database, Schema, Partitioning, Replication etc.). In product design, you are expected to focus more on the API side and High level functionality. I was not given a choice between product design and system design round. Talk to your recruiter and see if you can schedule the round where you are strong at.

Recruiter reached out to me and offered to send my packet to HC for E4 as feedback for product design didn't meet the bar for E5. I declined as it was not worth and a down-level for my experience.

Google

I had 3 coding rounds , 1 system design and 1 googlyness round.
Round 1 (Coding): 1 ambiguous problem with follow-ups. Expectation was to gather requirements and frame the problem statement. Once the scope was defined I provided few solutions with Time/Space complexities. Coded the same. Had few follow-ups w.r.t. what changes I'd make to make it thread-safe etc. This went well.
Round 2(Coding): 2 problems were given. First was related to 2-D matrix and 2nd was a graph problem. Solved both.
Round 3(Coding): A problem statement was given related to a e-commerce website. Had to gather requirements and once the scope was clear I understood it was a graph problem. Provided solutions using both DFS and BFS approach, implemented using DFS. Follow-up was again how to make it thread-safe. Next was kind of LLD question where I was given a problem and was expected to define classes/schema and relations. I provided a generic solution which would scale even for cases outside of problem statement scope.
Round 4(System Design): Was a given a problem related to a real life scenario. Very practical but not something you'd find on any YT channel or course. Since I had never seen the problem before there were no biases or known design in my mind. Kept it simple from the beginning. After gathering functional and non-functional requirements and some back-of-the-envelope estimations presented a very simple high level design. I literally drew just 3 components: client, server and a database. Then started talking about how I can scale each layer and talked about trade-offs as well. This was 1 hr round and first 45 mins went pretty well. In last 15 minutes I wasn't sure about what to talk about more as I was not getting any feedback from my interviewer. I believe he only talked during first 10 mins when I was gathering requirements and he had to answer my queries. In last 15 mins I thought of providing an algorithm of how to implement my approach and talked about few data-structures as well (although this might not be in scope of system design round). After the interview I knew it won't be a No Hire but was also not sure whether it would be Lean Hire or Hire etc.
Round 5(Googlyness): This was the best round. I discussed about various scenarios and situations following the STAR approach. I had prepared a lot of answers w.r.t. ambiguity, leadership, conflict, strengths etc. but I was kind of surprised as he didn't ask any direct questions which you usually prepare. I guess I only used 1 prepared story and rest was on the fly. But if you had prepared enough, you'll know what to answer and how to answer and would be able to relate to it using one of your experiences/projects.
Problems asked in Google were not directly from LC or any other platform. If you had practiced enough, you'll be able to solve them.Make sure you gather requirements, ask questions before jumping to solution. Keep talking and explain your thought process through-out. This is very important as interviewer would be able to judge you better and provide hints, if required.

Microsoft

Round 1 (Coding): It was a online assessment round. I had to solve 2 problems in 90 mins time. These 2 problems were new to me and I didn't find them on Leetcode. I'll categorize them as LC medium from algorithm perspective. But I had to write a lot of boiler-plate code unlike the usual LC mediums. You are given few visible test-cases and option to add custom test-cases. When you submit, 10-12 hidden test-cases are executed which are only visible post submission. So make sure you write your own test-cases well. After talking to various folks and going through community discussions, I also focused on code quality.I was able to solve both of them in 60 mins. Spent next 15 mins in adding comments in various functions to explain what they were doing. I also mentioned time and space complexity wherever I felt it was required. This is really important as this was not the screening round for me but an actual coding round where I would be judged not just on code correctness but also on code quality/modularity.My score was 100% (I passed all the visible and hidden test-cases for both the problems)
Round 2(Coding): 2 LC mediums with follow-ups. This went really well. Since we completed the coding exercise in ~35 mins, spent next 10 mins discussing my work experience/projects.
Round 3(LLD): First 10-15 mins were spent on my work experience. I had to design a Parking-Lot. Went well. You can find a lot of example/tutorials on Youtube etc.
Round 4(HLD): This was the Hiring Manager round. First 20 mins spent on my projects and various discussions w.r.t. how I handled a particular scenario and why I chose one technology over other. Next was given a popular HLD question. I did very well here. I believe this round differentiated between L63/L64 level and given my interview performance, I was offered L64 eventually.
Round 5(Director): This was mostly project discussions and behavioural questions. Nothing technical. Went well.

Uber

Screening Round: This was rather unexpected as interviewer gave me a LC Hard graph problem!! Who expects a LC hard in screening ? Well, Graph theory is one of my favourite and kind of my strength too, so I solved the problem well within time limit. At the start of the interview she told that if I could write the psuedo-code, that'd we fine too. But since we had time, I wrote some test-cases and tried the ones she copied pasted as well. All worked, pheww.
Round 1(Coding): 2 LC medium types. 1 related to Linked-List and other binary tree problem. Solved both.
Round 2(Coding): 1 data-structure design problem with lot of follow-ups including making it thread safe. Similar to Design a HashMap with custom O(1) operations. I was able to come up with design and implemented the same with O(1) complexity. Couldn't find the variation given to me on Leetcode.
Round 3(System Design): Design Uber. (yep, LOL)
Round 4 (Hiring Manager): Mostly project discussions and Behavioural questions.
Round 5 (Behavioural) - Cancelled. I received offers from Google and Microsoft and asked them to cancel as I had a deadline to make a decision on offers.

Atlassian

I felt Atlassian's interviews are really practical and they don't ask questions which you won't be expected to solve on a daily-basis. No screening round here, just a 30 min discussion with recruiter before scheduling interviews:
Round 1(Coding) : 1 problem was given. I was expected to code the same in my preferred IDE (IntelliJ, Eclipse etc.). Focus was mostly on data-structures and code quality. The algorithm itself was really easy if you chose correct data-structures. I used HashMap, Set and PriorityQueue in my solution. Created multiple classes, methods etc. Wrote a few test-cases. You end-up writing a lot of boiler-plate code in IDE as you need to write the main class and method, instantiate everything and then create test-cases. I even used a debugger to debug one of the test-case. This round went well.
Round 2(Machine Coding): Asked to implement a Rate-Limiter. Used an IDE again. Was given 1 problem statement and was expected to write a Object-oriented and modular code. This also went well.
Feedback of both the rounds were positive and recruiter scheduled 3 more rounds for me. 1 Design and 2 Cultural fit types. But I had to cancel them all as I had a deadline to make a decision on offers.

Closing Advice

Do not try to memorize or cram anything, it's useless. Instead try to deeply understand concepts and be curious. That's the only way to make this more enjoyable. It's a difficult journey but it will all be worth it at the end!
I hope this provides some perspective on the blackbox SWE interviews and helps you prepare better!
Full Experience: Here
Candidate's Resume: Here

First, Product innovation of Chainless systems

Leave a Comment / By WeishaZhu / November 2, 2023

Enter the white paper series
We start today to unveil the mystery of the chainless system and introduce the relevant contents of the white paper. Many programmers have had close encounters with Bitcoin and ended up empty-handed. We are destined to meet each other and believe your wealth is proportional to your cognition. Our airdrop design does not require you to spend money, but you must spend time reading articles to improve your cognition and contribute to your strength; otherwise, you will miss wealth. Interpreting the innovation of chainless systems” is divided into five sections.
Introduction
The WEB3.0 chainless financial platform is referred to as the chainless platform. Its design breaks out of the constraints of the blockchain, and there is no limit to the impossible triangle of the blockchain. Cryptocurrency is better than advanced ideas, but its development is slow. According to statistics from PANews, at the end of 2022, there are 1,259 active DAPPs in Ethereum, which is really pitiful. The chainless platform adopts the idea of ​​cryptocurrency and designs a transparent and centralized platform. The external characteristics are no different from the blockchain ledger. It is also a platform that implements openness and fairness and cannot be tampered with. Only in this way can the design compete with the ease of use of Web2, be popularized on a large scale, and make the number of DAPPs jump by an order of magnitude. Chainless design has no technical innovation and uses mature technology; it has unique innovations in products, incentives, communities, and core teams. This series has 5 sections in total. One is product innovation; the second is production relationship innovation; the third is business model innovation; the fourth is the role of the core team; and the fifth is the Interesting Reads Chainless Platform.
First, Product innovation of chainless systems
Innovation in unilateral accounting methods
Projects that adopt blockchain accounting methods, without exception, use multi-party accounting and centralized ledgers. Its ledgers are all balance ledgers. The so-called balance ledger means that unspent tokens are recorded in the ledger. All improvements in blockchain are improvements in accounting methods. The purpose is to improve ease of use while ensuring the accuracy of the ledger. This accounting method is blameless as a currency issuance system, but it has two flaws as an accounting system:

1. The fastest accounting time is no less than one second;
   
2. Sky-high accounting costs.
   

With the Bitcoin and Ethereum systems already serving as the root of credit, it would be unwise for any application-focused project to use multi-party accounting. Because any account page can be hashed, and the hash value is on chain to the credit root, thus ensuring that the ledger cannot be tampered with. The running account corresponding to the hash value is public. Even if there is no multi-party accounting, the account book can be verified by any party and is, therefore, credible. The root of credit means that the data that enters the root of credit cannot be tampered with. Readers who have difficulty reading this can refer to “What Satoshi Nakamoto didn’t think of, what he didn’t say… Series 2: Openness and transparency are the core, but decentralization only summarizes less than half of it.” The Road to Innovation in Cryptocurrency” Series 1-11 (chainless.hk).
Account Verification
The flaw in the third-party verification of Bitcoin design is that if A transfers tokens to B, B may not receive them if the address is wrong. Bitcoin’s third-party verification is only formal, regardless of whether B gets it. As a centralized ledger, the transfer from A to B is an internal transfer of the “bank.” It is very easy for A and B to confirm the transfer. After A and B confirm that the transfer is correct, the chainless system will confirm it again, and there will be no dispute. It is very easy to achieve this improvement in Bitcoin, but there is no threshold for transfers for technicians, so they do not think there will be operational problems here.
Index general ledger to ensure ledger balance
All personal sub-ledgers constitute a reconciliation with the general ledger coin indicator, and the sum of all sub-ledger coins is always equal to the data of the general ledger indicator. This point is the point of invention and the starting point of general ledger innovation.
The hash value of the journal is uploaded to the chain
Chainless calculates the hash value of an account page in one minute, then uploads it to the Bitcoin system, and the account is made public. The transaction confirmation time is not the account page formation time but the three-party confirmation time of A, B, and the chainless system. This confirmation time is in milliseconds. It is consistent with the speed of centralized transfer systems.
Multiple signatures and multiple backup wallets
It is equivalent to the user controlling an online multi-sign project by himself. Multi-signing is more troublesome. Chainless has designed multi-signing grading, so small quantities do not require multiple signings.
Inherit
With the multi-sign and multi-backup functions, inheritance is realized by the way. The inheritance time can be modified, and inheritance can be automatically started when the time is up.
Support real-name and anonymous
The chainless data format is a public key and private key system, with real names grafted onto anonymity. If real names are not supported, it is impossible to integrate with real finance. The right to disclose privacy lies with the user.
The user controls external transfers
When the chainless system makes an external transfer, the chainless system and the user jointly control the multi-signature. If the user does not sign, the chainless system’s signature will be invalid and cannot be transferred; even if the user signs, the chainless system will not make an external transfer if the verification exceeds the user’s number of coins. When making an external transfer, the user must use his mobile phone to confirm twice.
Contract accounts and deposit accounts are not directly related
Ethereum accounts can be driven externally or by contracts. They are on the same account, which is inconvenient when designing applications. Chainless separates contract accounts and deposit accounts, allowing flexibility in contract design.
Issuance of decentralized currency DW20
The issuance principle of DW20 is the same as that of Bitcoin. It is ownerless and has no management team. It is a transaction token of a chainless system. Used to implement Bitcoin standards. DW20 is different from stablecoins. In addition to the white paper, readers can refer to series 1-4 of “Comparison of Decentralized Standard Currency DW20 with Bitcoin, Stablecoin DAI, and Standard Currency USD”. (chainless.hk)
Issue chainless system token CLY
CLY represents the value of the chainless system and is an equity token.
Advances beyond blockchain
In short, the chainless system captures the essence of cryptocurrency ideas, achieves the payment speed of centralized systems, and aligns with the views of Web3. The chainless system inherits the technical advantages of Web2, with meager accounting costs. The accounting system can automatically expand on demand, and the throughput is not limited. Smart contracts are easy to write and upgrade, and the wallet is safe and easy to use. The ease of use is the same as that of centralized wallets.
The chainless system combines the ideas of Bitcoin and hopes to become an effective payment platform and the infrastructure of Web3 to make up for the payment deficiencies of the Bitcoin system.
The chainless system began to be conceived in 2018, a preliminary plan was formed in 2019, a patent was applied for in 2020, the first draft of the white paper was produced in 2021, and implementation of the plan began in 2022. Open source after public beta. After open source, quoting the code within 18 months requires the written consent of the project team.
https://chainless.hk/2023/11/02/first-product-innovation-of-chainless-systems/

There's a dedicated tag for fan fiction, but no way to actually specify what fiction your adapting from? Why is there no way to search for Pokemon fics?
Game lit and litRPG are 2 separate tags for some reason? and if there is a difference there's nothing stopping you from tagging both.
Romance tag exists but there's no way to differentiate from lesbian, straight, gay, poly, or whether its a dedicated romance versus a side theme.
I love beware of chicken and it definitely *has* romance, but its not a core theme if your looking for a romance book ya know? I can't really speak for most of the books under the romance tag, except maybe many lives of cadence lee which is not a dedicated romance due to the whole, many lives thing.
I know people like to pretend queers don't exists because its political or something but I for one would like to search for romance with say, a gay male lead without having to play tag guesser in the title search.
And I'm sure there are plenty of you who'd rather not read something like that instead of being surprised because the author was supposed to put up a big "here there be gays" sign on chapter 1.
Or maybe you just would like a way to filter out all the lesbian stories when searching for dedicated romance stories because you may want something with a bit more testosterone? Ya dig?
No hate to anyone who writes any of this stuff by the way. I know I read all of it. I'm just pointing out a structural issue in the site. Scribblehub is a glorified erotica site but at least it has proper tagging. Even if some of those tags are slurs.

Mods please remove and scold me if this is the wrong Thread.
Searching for information about flights/miles for a non-profit youth team.
TLDR: Is there a way for me or our (501c3) organization (local Recreation team) to obtain “rewards” from donors and donors benefit financially (taxes or money) without being scammed? We Will know at the last minute whether or not we qualify for Regionals in Hawaii. A cost burden that might be too high for the families of the kids that earned this opportunity. Trying to find ways to make it work for all those being recognized.
This is about a city rec team trying to make it to the Little League (Cal Ripken) World Series.
We have a Team (in Sacramento, CA Area) that might make it to Regionals in Hawaii. We won’t know until about 3 weeks before the tournament. Usually the teams that earn these achievements are well funded. We are just a city rec team. I am a volunteer.
I am worried for the families ability to participate. Including myself.
These boys have made it so very far. For 3 years they have consistently finished at the top of the State Tournament and the Regionals Tournaments falling short of the World Series. This year the opportunity cost is even higher.
States and Regionals have been here in Northern California. We were lucky and could stay at home. While other teams flew in. This is their last year. They are aging out. This same group of kids has made it through COVID. All the much to do about
This year, Regionals are in Hawaii. An expense that many will not be able to bear. I am a disabled Veteran. And I am also looking into Space A travel. There are flights going from Travis AFB to Oahu daily. They can’t be hit and miss. But still an option.
As I have been fundraising all around town. Trying to raise money for flights and hotels of the team Makes it. If they do not we have our 501c3 we can donate our funds to. $50k-$75k is seeming like an impossibility. I was asked if we had looked at “Reward Mile” donations. Seems like it might be a way for me to stretch the few dollars the team is receiving. Making it more likely the kids that earned the recognition will be able to participate.
So I started looking around. I see mixed answers.
Please correct me where I am Incorrect. -It seems miles can be shared. -buying miles from carrier is not a wise decision. -being scammed is easy. If we paid for the “rewards” to have tickets booked. The “donor” could cancel the tickets after we have paid for the “rewards” -Transferring “rewards” to other “Reward” Members may lose some value.
Does anyone know if they are donated to a 501c3 they can be a tax write off to the donor? Or is it a “reward” so the monetary value is not recognized?
Any other questions I should be asking? Anything helps. As I mentioned. I am just a Volunteer Coach. I was asked to Coach this team again by the community. I have the philosophy these kids are not going to be Major League multimillionaires. They will be our neighbors, teachers, son-in-laws and adults one day. I try to show them attitude and effort is what they can control. Play hard. Have fun.
I have more questions. But Typing all my queries is kind of hard.