General
I am looking for a lady between 28 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I tried to be as concise as possible while still providing what details I think are crucial to know; I realise this post turned out very long, but I prefer those because I can get as good an idea as possible with detailed descriptions, bar actually talking to the person, and find that very valuable, so if that also applies to you, that would be awesome.
Basics
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner (ranging from 5k to full marathon), training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with a fearful avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or in the stadium watching football and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I am looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus (and there have to be at least a couple things we have in common), emotional and sexual compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals (some of which in quite a litteral sense as they make for really amazing pillows) and ideally, you do too.
There is a saying that in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly, like I said, need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well – this just to put the picture I'm (somewhat haphazardly) trying to paint into perspective.
Second, sexual compatibility. I have a high libido and I have kinks, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy them together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, sexual fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. Someone on here has coined the term 'filthy best friends and partners' which I have no shame to be stealing because it's such an apt description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. I love the relationship model outlined in Stan Tatkin’s ‘Wired for Love’ and you should, too. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. I know codependency is the latest thing everyone’s afraid of, but experiencing someone you’ve grown very attached to just bailing because they’re counterdependent and can’t stand working on themselves while simultaneously letting you in is something I’d rather not go through again. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere. If you think’s it’s okay to lovebomb someone and then leave after a couple of months with the minimum amount of information and no proper conversation because you’re not ready to own up to what’s happening to you emotionally, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, be opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: many childfree people seem to be adventurous, but that is a trait I don't associate with myself at all. I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, seeing them change around us, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side (albeit not regarding height), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
The natural progression for me would be to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but having my heart broken because I already developed feelings due to a longer timeframe and then everything unexpectedly turning to shit is not something I want to have to live through again. I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself, I unfortunately had to learn that
Caveats/Possible red flags

• I don't like travelling as it stresses me out; I don't mind being somewhere else for a week or two, but the organisation part of it drains my energy very quickly and dealing with stuff that doesn't work out is overwhelming to me. Smaller trips are ok, but I'm not the right person to travel the world with.
• I am not the most awake person in the morning (i.e. I identify as nightowl)
• I need space for my own projects/time to recharge after social interaction.
• While I feel like I am in tune with my inner child and working on/with it through therapy, I realise this is something that could be a turn-off for people.
• I have been diagnosed with depressive episodes in the past and am taking anti-depressants right now. I realise that I am a work in progress, maybe more so than in times past, but I manage and the fact that I'm putting myself out here is based on me being ready to get to know someone new.
• I want to create a home together here, as I'm firmly rooted where I was born; I realise this is a lot to ask, but I have seen many people here being open to moving, so I want to at least try reaching out to them.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and include some pictures of yourself and I will reply with my own. Have a nice day (:

"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 looking for a lady between 25 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner, training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with an avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or at a football game and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I'm looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus, emotional and intimate compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals and ideally, you do too.
Apparently in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well.
Second, intimate compatibility. I am rather insatiable and love to experiment when it comes to the bedroom, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, this kind of fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. I found the term 'filthy best friends and partners' to be a perfect description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
I’d prefer to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself.
Caveats

• I don't like travelling as it stresses me out; I don't mind being somewhere else for a week or two, but the organisation part of it drains my energy very quickly and dealing with stuff that doesn't work out is overwhelming to me. Smaller trips are ok, but I'm not the right person to travel the world with.
• I am not the most awake person in the morning (i.e. I identify as nightowl)
• I don't want children and had a vasectomy
• I need space for my own projects/time to recharge after social interaction.
• While I feel like I am in tune with my inner child and working on/with it through therapy, I realise this is something that could be a turn-off for people.
• I have been diagnosed with depressive episodes in the past and am taking anti-depressants right now. I realise that I am a work in progress, maybe more so than in times past, but I manage and the fact that I'm putting myself out here is based on me being ready to get to know someone new.
• I want to create a home together here, as I'm firmly rooted where I was born; I realise this is a lot to ask, but I have seen many people here being open to moving, so I want to at least try reaching out to them.

If you're interested, feel free to message me and include some pictures of yourself and I will reply with my own. Have a nice day (:

EDIT: As I was typing this EP pretty heavily implied that Drake is a pedophile. So take everything i'm about to say with a grain of salt:
Bare with me y'all.
I have been thinking about EP and who he is as a person for quite some time now, and I believe understanding his ethos is key to understanding his message.
For one, it has become abundantly clear that EbonyPrince is somebody who dislikes Drake due to his attack on American culture, specifically Black American culture.
Reading through all of his tweets again, it is definitely true that there is a sinister and accusatory overtone to his messages, but I am starting to believe that the accusations are different to the ones that we have been running with.
I believe that there were incidents at the The Mark could have to do with minors (his tweets regarding CPS and reporting such crimes make that clear), and I believe that whatever happened at that Caviar restaurant is likely where that element of Drake's character comes into play.
However, the CA related night, at least to me, is EP highlighting Drake's lack of care for Black issues. I believe that on this night, it became clearer than ever to EP that Drake was somebody who is attempting to benefit off of black culture.
My reasoning for this is the seemingly 'random' black excellence posts that are sandwiched between each posting spree. EP has been meticulous about his posts. Believe him or not, it's clear that there is thought that is going into his tweets (AT LEAST THE OLDER ONES LOL).
Recently, EP has been telling people to stay out of black business and to stay away from the culture, in other words, he is telling his 'audience' that if you don't care about black issues, you need to GTFO.
I think that if the video were to ever release, it would showcase Drake using his power to unrightfully punish the two security guards, and unfairly treating them (potentially due to their race?).
From the line in Meet The Grahams talking about Drake's hyper sexualization of black women to EP's continued stress on the importance of black culture, I believe that EbonyPrince's 'smoking gun' has more to do with Drake not being for the culture and being an imposter in the black community than it does him diddling kids.
With all that being said, I think it is still equally possible that he is holding BOTH of those things over Drake's head, and I think we just have to wait and see.
I just wanted to give my two cents, sorry for the #yap.

Dramatic title, but I can't really explain it that well in few words. I also couldn't figure out a Subreddit that this would fit on, I think this one is best.
This one's a long one. TL;DR at bottom, but some details are important.
A bit of backstory first.
I'm a recently graduated HS Senior, headed to university in Fall. Around March, I applied to work at a mid-sized stadium in my area for a summer job-- I have about 2 years of stable retail experience, plus ServSafe certification and some good credentials outside of that. I've left almost all my jobs on good terms and I do my work fine. Never had any complaints.
I am a black woman. That is relevant to my story. I also have a very "white-sounding" name. For the sake of my privacy, let's say it's Sarah McIntyre. It's got the same vibe. I also have a "white-sounding" voice, especially over the phone. A lot of my family pokes fun at it, and it's not a huge deal.
So, I'm applying to this job, and the online application is pretty sparse. Few questions about my experience, age, and contact info. Nothing about my race at all. I apply, get a request for a phone interview, and hop on a call a few days later. My manager loves me. We have a great interview. She emails me a day later and says I got the job, and my orientation is in a week.
Orientation goes on, it's in a pretty large group and she doesn't address any of us directly or even ask for names, but I noticed her giving me a bit of a weird look. I figured it was about my hair which is dyed bright green so whatever.
We start working, and she's just very weird to me the whole time. Gives me weird looks, doesn't answer my questions, always watching me while I'm working at the concessions register. She doesn't do this with any of the other girls there. Concessions is about five other girls, all around my age. All of them are first-years at the stadium.
I get ready for work the next day, and I get a call from my Manager:
"Hey, OP. Don't come in today." "Oh? Is the game called off?" "No. Someone else is covering you. Bye."
Which was incredibly weird to me, honestly. But I wasn't going to press on the issue-- it was the first shifts of the season, maybe she wanted to train someone else instead of having me work. After this, there was about a month and a half gap between my next shift, which was May 9. Then I have another May 11; both go fine.
Manager posts the schedule for the next few weeks, up until June 9. I have one single shift. One. A four-hour concessions shift. I was insanely confused by this-- it's the start of the season with home games almost every single day, and multiple events with huge crowds. I texted the other girls I work with through our scheduling app and asked what their shifts looked like-- 3 to 5 shifts every week, about six hours each.
I was seriously wracking my brain for 3 days straight trying to think why on Earth I got the short end of the stick. I show up early and leave late every day, I help out as much as I can, customers don't complain, I'm experienced with the register and with counting tender, my co-workers and I get along fine, I've never had any issues with anyone.
The only thing I could seriously think about was my race. Which feels very cheap and victim-y, but it was the only thing I noticed that was an outlier. Out of every single employee at our stadium, I am the only person of color. Maybe somebody else is a minority, too, but they're incredibly white passing if they are. The only other brown people are the baseball players, which aren't on our staff team-- they're a separate entity entirely.
But that's all I can think of-- and my manager wouldn't have known about my race until she saw me for the first time at my first shift. And it's kind of difficult to have all-white staff considering we are in the suburbs of Chicago. Most people in our area are Black or Latino. It's seriously a considered effort to have an all-white staff in this area. I think I may have just slipped through the cracks because my name and voice are very misleading? But I can't tell if I'm overreacting or not-- I haven't said anything to my manager.
I don't want to quit because my coworkers are really nice, and I love the job. It's great being outside and being in a fun and fast environment like a stadium. But I'm trying to save for university and that's difficult when I don't work at all. Plus, I don't wanna give my labor to someone who despises me.
Am I overreacting in this situation and getting ahead of myself, or is this actually something worth looking into? Please help me. And yes, I know that it's very overdramatic to make things about my race-- this is genuinely the first time I've had to consider this with an employer.
TL;DR I'm the only minority at my job and I get barely any shifts while my white coworkers get more. I don't do anything wrong and I have lots of experience in similar roles. Should I look into this more, or get over myself?

RAGFlow was open sourced on April 1, 2024 at https://github.com/infiniflow/ragflow and has reached 7800 stars till now, so I hope you all enjoy it.
RAGFlow is dockerized and very easy to deploy. We recommend using at least 16GB of RAM as it has some built-in models for document structure recognition and OCR to make the most of it. It can also be deployed directly from source code. RAGFlow uses Python/Elasticsearch as the backend and React as the frontend. Here is our product description:

"Quality in, quality out"

• Deep document understanding-based knowledge extraction from unstructured data with complicated formats.
• Finds "needle in a data haystack" of literally unlimited tokens.

Template-based chunking

• Intelligent and explainable.
• Plenty of template options to choose from.

Grounded citations with reduced hallucinations

• Visualization of text chunking to allow human intervention.
• Quick view of the key references and traceable citations to support grounded answers.
• Compatibility with heterogeneous data sources
• Supports Word, slides, excel, txt, images, scanned copies, structured data, web pages, and more.

Automated and effortless RAG workflow

• Streamlined RAG orchestration catered to both personal and large businesses.
• Configurable LLMs as well as embedding models.
• Multiple recall paired with fused re-ranking.
• Intuitive APIs for seamless integration with business.

RAGFlow v0.6.0 is out today, we think now it's now time to bring it up to the selfhosted community for your feedback!

A friend of mine was sharing with me some of his favorite descriptions, including this one from The Road by CM:
"Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery."
I said that's a beautiful and poetic description, mentioning the line comparing the patterns on the fish to maps and mazes. But is it true to your experience, I asked? Yes, he said, because he has actually held brook trout in his hands and knows what that feels, what they smell like, etc.
But that is something I haven't done, I confessed.
Which brings me to what I want to ask you. First, think of a description you read of something or some situation, be it a country you've been to, your first job as a newspaper delivery person, falling in love as a teenager, learning how to drive in a busy city's downtown, etc. Then, if you had experience with the same thing, did the description really capture in words the essence of the feelings or sensations you had at the time? Or does reading it really take you back to it? If so, would you mind sharing that?
Edit: Could be even something real simple, like the taste of pizza with beer, or going on a swing in the park. Not everybody can describe that experience real well and put it into words. So it's wonderful when you come across that.

Hi all. Just wanted to try getting a narrowed down idea of my type. Feel free to comment your thoughts! Thanks!
• How old are you? What's your gender? Give us a general description of yourself.
I'm a 25 year-old male. I'm a diligent student and am living away from my home country for now 9 years. Ive spent those 9 years trying to understand the way the society works here and have adapted rather well, to the point where people can't tell I'm a foreigner. I'm pretty active, although it's more so activity for the sake of activity. As such, I'm kinda fit.
• Is there a medical diagnosis that may impact your mental stability somehow?
Yes. GAD and PTSD.
• If you had to spend an entire weekend by yourself, how would you feel? Would you feel lonely or refreshed?
I would have fomo if I were to see everyone else that I deem as friend doing something cool on socials. Then I would become resentful. However, I myself am perfectly okay being in my own company. I prefer it. That is not to say I don't like being with my frens. I would feel refreshed but there would come a point where I would feel as if I can't bear being so alone. Especially after long periods of time. However, I am accustomed to being alone and finding the joy in it. Like I said, I would resent the very sociable folks because I felt left out
• What kinds of activities do you prefer? Do you like, and are you good at sports? Do you enjoy any other outdoor or indoor activities?
I like activities that i can enjoy anywhere. Though i think this is because of how used to using a phone i am. Mobile gaming etc... is pretty neat. I like activities in which i can see a story unfold. Reading is one of them, iwas a huge reader as a kid. But i gravitate more so towards watching cool shows. However i much prefer shows and things that arent as popular because then people wont annoyingly yap about the surface level of the shows that we mutually have watched. Though I do like creative activities, like painting, I also like shopping and walking around. I like doing things that I feel are leading towards something grand. So, for instance, journaling and practicing a skill daily brings me some pleasure. I used to be a huge football fan until I realized how corrupt the sport was. I do like some sports though. I've always liked tossing and catching balls, playing with bouncy balls as a kid etc... I like skateboarding, though I haven't owned one in years.
• How curious are you? Do you have more ideas then you can execute? What are your curiosities about? What are your ideas about - is it environmental or conceptual, and can you please elaborate?
Quite curious. I'm sometimes out of touch with reality just entertaining my mental musings. I will be sat and thinking about some random topic or thing iused to hear about and then research it. I'll try to make sense of the world and the "why" behind things. For example; why do I have nightmares when it's cold? Why are xyz so unreasonable? Why am I so attached to this toy? Why don't people do instead of y? I feel like social media has influenced this process tho. Giving us random things to consume, it leads us to clicking on videos and articles that spark new interests so easily and quickly, so I'm unsure. Though I tend to want to know why certain things are happening or WHAT is happening. Especially if theres like a crown gasping at something, for instance.
• Would you enjoy taking on a leadership position? Do you think you would be good at it? What would your leadership style be?
i have taken leadership positions in the past, and I did well. I much prefer to appeal to the good nature of my "teammates" and encourage them to do a good job.however, I prefer to select my team. I do not want laziness or incompetence in my crew. So I will scan my options and choose who I will team up with. If I have options that are limited to not-so-skilled individuals, I will play a leadership role and do most of the thinking. Tho I don't enjoy it.
• Are you coordinated? Why do you feel as if you are or are not? Do you enjoy working with your hands in some form? Describe your activity?
i'm coordinated, yeah. I actually prefer situations where I can grasp the essence of a problem and use my hands. I prefer writing over reading, so I guess I like using my hands fo effect the mediums I work with. I used to want to be like a spy who is interacting with a bunch of gadgets and mobilizing himself towards a goal. My activity is usually at my own pace. I frequently try to finish tasks ahead of schedule because I want to spend more time lazing around and doing whatever I want. I tend to seek clarity in instructions I am given and sequentially take care of each piece of the task I am given. I recently started using to do lists because the workload became HUGE. I will, however, not compromise my comfort.
• Are you artistic? If yes, describe your art? If you are not particular artistic but can appreciate art please likewise describe what forms of art you enjoy. Please explain your answer.
i am. I am skilled with pencil shading and line art and do pretty well with colours and aesthetics. I know what I like and try to make something that appeals to me and is objectively nice. I tend to also make pieces that resonate with myself, so things that I like. I even sought to learn to draw faces to draw myself and my friends ad fantasy characters. I'm good with visual arts but I'm also a pretty good actor. I've always excelled at making accents and role playing. I like thinking of people in terms of the archetypes they fill and even portray my friends in memes
• What's your opinion about the past, present, and future? How do you deal with them?
The past, I have a love hate relationship with it. I made mistakes that I regret and have been through horrible things. But I do appreciate things from the past that bring me meaning. Certain flavors, sceneries, good memories. As for the present, I tend to be locked out of the present moment. I struggle to live in the moment and can seem rather weird. I think more about things than actually doing them. It feels like I play a character at any given moment for any given interaction tho. As for the future, I tend to find it weird. I want a better future and sometimes think, in a tight situation, "don't worry. Tomorrow this will be over." I love thinking that the future is open and that better days are ahead. I often wonder what it will feel like doing things ive never done. Absent of anxiety, that is. With anxiety, whole different story. "Tomorrow is bound to be worse than today" when anxious
• How do you act when others request your help to do something (anything)? If you would decide to help them, why would you do so?
i help those i'm cool with or at least neutral towards. If the individual is full of nonsense and lazy or offers no value in return, no way.
• How important is efficiency and productivity to you?
I've been lazy all mylifr and I never stopped hearing about it. So just to prove people wrong, I will move bricks and mountains. Whichever is important to a degree of thinking "less is more". Productivity is alright too, but at my own pace ofc
• What are your hobbies? Why do you like them?
i listen to music, journal, watch cartoons and movies, work out, walk, try to find ways to "fix" my life (my friends tell me this is what I do most), play games, try some good food, meditate (I tend to neglect this one), research interesting things, draw, accomplish a goal
• What is your learning style? What kind of learning environments do you struggle with most? Why do you like/struggle with these learning styles? Do you prefer classes involving memorization, logic, creativity, or your physical senses?
I hate classes with lots of aural input from a lecturer, If it triggers my misophonia.i prefer learning things practically. explanations will just have me needing to read more and try to focus on boring notes. Using my hands and brains is preferred. I score high in Kinesthetic for VARK tests. Oh, and visual. I prefer classes that involve logic, creativity and physical senses. I can memorize things but this is the most tedious learning style for me.
• How good are you at strategizing? Do you easily break up projects into manageable tasks? Or do you have a tendency to wing projects and improvise as you go?
I can strategise when needed. I weigh the task up first. If the task at hand is hard, I will break it down and dedicate more energy to it. Else, I'll just do what feels right. I even ignore instructions sometimes.
• What do the "highs" in your life look like?
The flavour of the world feels warm, with a tinge of coldness. I would feel as if my suffering paid off and I am nowhere except where I am supposed to be. That there is no rush and no need to care of what others think about me. Where I can just do what I deem best amd find a balance between stability and adventure
• What do the "lows" in your life look like?
Nightmares, hypichondriasis, overthinking, rumination, anxiety, panic, jealousy, having no autonomy
• How attached are you to reality? Do you daydream often, or do you pay attention to what's around you? If you do daydream, are you aware of your surroundings while you do so?
I daydream quite a lot. But I will still feel what's around me enough to get somewhere where I can be in my head in peace. XD
• Imagine you are alone in a blank, empty room. There is nothing for you to do and no one to talk to. What do you think about?
I like empty rooms, especially if they used to be lively and full of people in past events. Goes to show that no matter what happens, some things remain. I would think of what life would be like if I were to live here forever. I would also be reminded of that meme where there's just a futon, a screen, a fridge and a katana: "all men need to be happy". If the room has no windows or doors, I'd be scared. Assuming it has windows and a door, I would look outside, eventually. How big is the room? If it's a HUUUUGE empty hall, that's so cool. I'd walk around and imagine myself in some great elvish building and maybe even lie down to see the roof. I even dreamt of such a building before, hexagon shaped cross section.
• How long do you take to make an important decision? And do you change your mind once you've made it?
I take a bloody long time to decide on anything important. For instance, i took 4 hours to decide what race my DnD character would be. Once I've made my decision, I will not regret it unless it goes wrong
• How long do you take to process your emotions? How important are emotions in your life?
I have always tended to act on emotion but i have been more balanced in the past 4 years. I regulate them to not make a mess and use them to deem what I will and will not tolerate in the future. I enjoy expressing them
• Do you ever catch yourself agreeing with others just to appease them and keep the conversation going? How often? Why?
No. Cause that's fake. If I don't agree, I'll just say "cool" and move on. Why talk if I'm going to say what YOU want to hear? I must say what I want to say.
• Do you break rules often? Do you think authority should be challenged, or that they know better? If you do break rules, why?
Yeah, but I often get told that what I'm doing isn't right and then I just get mad at the person that told me that. "No sir you can't wear shoes in this room" I'll think cwell, screw you too!" Besides that, I often follow the rules of any given institution well enough.

A friend of mine was sharing with me some of his favorite descriptions, including this one from The Road by CM:
"Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery."
I said that's a beautiful and poetic description, mentioning the line comparing the patterns on the fish to maps and mazes. But is it true to your experience, I asked? Yes, he said, because he has actually held brook trout in his hands and knows what that feels, what they smell like, etc.
But that is something I haven't done, I confessed.
Which brings me to what I want to ask you. First, think of a description you read of something or some situation, be it a country you've been to, your first job as a newspaper delivery person, falling in love as a teenager, learning how to drive in a busy city's downtown, etc. Then, if you had experience with the same thing, did the description really capture in words the essence of the feelings or sensations you had at the time? Or does reading it really take you back to it? If so, would you mind sharing that?
Edit: Could be even something real simple, like the taste of pizza with beer, or going on a swing in the park. Not everybody can describe that experience real well and put it into words. So it's wonderful when you come across that.

Welcome to the book club New Voices! In this book club we want to highlight books by debut authors and open the stage for under-represented and under-appreciated writers from all walks of life. New voices refers to the authors as well as the protagonists, and the goal is to include viewpoints away from the standard and most common. For more information and a short description of how we plan to run this club and how you can participate, please have a look at the announcement post.
It's time for second chances! I've selected a few books from previous polls, that didn't quite make it and deserve a second chance:

Under Fortunate Stars by Ren Hutchings

Fleeing the final days of the generations-long war with the alien Felen, smuggler Jereth Keeven's freighter the Jonah breaks down in a strange rift in deep space, with little chance of rescue—until they encounter the research vessel Gallion, which claims to be from 152 years in the future. The Gallion's chief engineer Uma Ozakka has always been fascinated with the past, especially the tale of the Fortunate Five, who ended the war with the Felen. When the Gallion rescues a run-down junk freighter, Ozakka is shocked to recognize the Five's legendary ship—and the Five's famed leader, Eldric Leesongronski, among the crew. But nothing else about Leesongronski and his crewmates seems to match up with the historical record. With their ships running out of power in the rift, more than the lives of both crews may be at stake.

Bingo squares: book club

The Magic Fish by Trung Le Nguyen

The book tells an intergenerational story of a mother and son struggling to relate to each other—the mother an immigrant to the United States who wants to make a home for her family in an unfamiliar country; the son trying to figure out the best way to come out to his parents. Through telling each other fairy tales, they're able to find common ground.

Bingo squares: bookclub

Bacchanal by Veronica Henry

Evil lives in a traveling carnival roaming the Depression-era South. But the carnival’s newest act, a peculiar young woman with latent magical powers, may hold the key to defeating it. Her time has come. Abandoned by her family, alone on the wrong side of the color line with little to call her own, Eliza Meeks is coming to terms with what she does have. It’s a gift for communicating with animals. To some, she’s a magical tender. To others, a she-devil. To a talent prospector, she’s a crowd-drawing oddity. And the Bacchanal Carnival is Eliza’s ticket out of the swamp trap of Baton Rouge. Among fortune-tellers, carnies, barkers, and folks even stranger than herself, Eliza finds a new home. But the Bacchanal is no ordinary carnival. An ancient demon has a home there too. She hides behind an iridescent disguise. She feeds on innocent souls. And she’s met her match in Eliza, who’s only beginning to understand the purpose of her own burgeoning powers. Only then can Eliza save her friends, find her family, and fight the sway of a primordial demon preying upon the human world. Rolling across a consuming dust bowl landscape, Eliza may have found her destiny.

Bingo squares: bookclub

The Hacienda by Isabel Cañas

Mexican Gothic meets Rebecca in this debut supernatural suspense novel, set in the aftermath of the Mexican War of Independence, about a remote house, a sinister haunting, and the woman pulled into their clutches...
In the overthrow of the Mexican government, Beatriz’s father is executed and her home destroyed. When handsome Don Rodolfo Solórzano proposes, Beatriz ignores the rumors surrounding his first wife’s sudden demise, choosing instead to seize the security his estate in the countryside provides. She will have her own home again, no matter the cost.
But Hacienda San Isidro is not the sanctuary she imagined.
When Rodolfo returns to work in the capital, visions and voices invade Beatriz’s sleep. The weight of invisible eyes follows her every move. Rodolfo’s sister, Juana, scoffs at Beatriz’s fears—but why does she refuse to enter the house at night? Why does the cook burn copal incense at the edge of the kitchen and mark its doorway with strange symbols? What really happened to the first Doña Solórzano?
Beatriz only knows two things for certain: Something is wrong with the hacienda. And no one there will help her.
Desperate for help, she clings to the young priest, Padre Andrés, as an ally. No ordinary priest, Andrés will have to rely on his skills as a witch to fight off the malevolent presence haunting the hacienda and protect the woman for whom he feels a powerful, forbidden attraction. But even he might not be enough to battle the darkness.
Far from a refuge, San Isidro may be Beatriz’s doom.

Bingo squares: bookclub

The Heretic‘s Guide to Homecoming by Sienna Tristen

WINNER OF THE 2019 READERVIEWS AWARD FOR FANTASY! WINNER OF THE 2019 IPPY AWARD FOR FANTASY!
“Life is transformation. You change or you die.”
Ashamed of his past and overwhelmed by his future, Ronoah Genoveffa Elizzi-denna Pilanovani feels too small for his own name. After a graceless exit from his homeland in the Acharrioni desert, his anxiety has sabotaged every attempt at redemption. Asides from a fiery devotion to his godling, the one piece of home he brought with him, he has nothing.
That is, until he meets Reilin. Beguiling, bewildering Reilin, who whisks Ronoah up into a cross-continental pilgrimage to the most sacred place on the planet. The people they encounter on the way—children of the sea, a priestess and her band of storytellers, the lonely ghosts of monsters—are grim and whimsical in equal measure. Each has their part to play in rewriting Ronoah’s personal narrative.
One part fantasy travelogue, one part emotional underworld journey, The Heretic’s Guide to Homecoming is a sumptuous, slow-burning story about stories and the way they shape our lives.

Bingo squares: bookclub
Do you like the selection? Have you already read one of the books and want to recommend it to others? Do you know any additional Bingo squares for any of the books? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Click here to vote

Voting will run until May 27 and the winner will be announced on May 28

I started a save with King’s Lynn in conference National. Got promoted first season with real life chairman. Then second season in conference national (top of league) the chairman kept trying to sell the club. There was one failed local business man one but never got as far as a transfer embargo so guess it was never close.
I then got the elusive “things might never be the same” media message. Claimed a South Korean business man tycoon wanted to buy the club and would make £11.2m available for transfers. This went on for a month or two with the “deal close” and “deal close to falling apart” media messages repeatedly coming up…then a transfer embargo set in and it happened.
I have screen shots on my laptop but there was a media message using the words “tycoon” and the landmarks tab now says the club was taken over by a tycoon. However a message was received saying he was making 100k available for transfers. I mean 100k at conference level was handy but not ground breaking as a tycoon take over should be in my opinion. Our wage budget went up but only to 7th highest in national league. The original media message did the usual “he will stop at nothing to make Kings Lynn the biggest team in the land”.
Either way I got promotion again in record breaking style to league 2. Budget released for that season 60k transfer budget and 60k salary budget which is ok but again not spectacular for league 2 by any means.
The question I’m asking is anyone with experience of tycoon take overs, I know there is 3 different types of tycoons but if you’ve had one at lower league do they sometimes take time to start investing money. I mean my side like all conference sides bleeds money despite me never going over salary budget etc and operating carefully. The owner put £1m in to help with running costs at the end of the national league promotion season when the overall balance was £300k in the red (still no actual debt etc). He usually after an argument accepts requests to improve youth recruitment but any improvement to facilities gets rejected “because of the clubs financial situation” which I find odd as he’s a tycoon and the club balance is positive and no debt.
I’m now at a stage where championship clubs are coming in for me. I always play my journey man saves as real as I can (virtually no rep, badges etc). I move when it’s realistic to etc. I didn’t know I’d get a tycoon take over but when I’m on £950 p/w and clubs are offering me £6,750 p/w wage in real life I’d surely jump to a massive club (derby and Coventry for context) but I’m tempted to stay because of the tycoon aspect.
Playing round on the skin I use I noticed on the finances tab it tells you if which ever club your looking at, has a tycoon an what type (underwriter, foreground) etc. on my Kings Lynn save it just says Tycoon and no description of which. Only one I can find with no description as well.
Is this normal for a tycoon save to be like this. I don’t want to leave and suddenly after over a year he starts acting like the announcements at his take over claimed he would be 😂. Basically what I’m saying is, after 30 plus years of playing fm and never getting a tycoon take over, if he’s about to give me a truck load of money randomly I will stay put lol.

Hi everyone,
I'm selling the following items on Reddit. We're not a reseller. Just direct owners of the said items. Most of the items are bought from the US, brand new, never been used/worn, and in excellent condition. Majority of the RFS would be to declutter or we just don't need it due to having the exact same item, don't prefer the style, or upgrade etc.
Anyways, these are the said items. Item descriptions are prices are indicated once you click on the respective hyperlinks below.

1. Men Two Lacoste Polo Shirts Slim Fit Large Sizes. Light & Dark Green Colors P3,000 *SOLD
   
2. Lacoste Men's Regular Fit Cotton Sport T-Shirt. US Size 5 Large P3,000 *SOLD
   
3. Lacoste Men's Classic Leather Folding Wallet. NOIR Color P3,000 *SOLD
   
4. Los Angeles Lakers LeBron James Nike Gold Swingman Jersey - Icon Edition P4,000 *SOLD
   
5. Los Angeles Lakers Nike Dri-FIT NBA Swingman Jersey P3,500
   
6. Puma Men's Performance Sport Microfiber Boxer Brief 5 Pack Medium Size (2 Items) P1,000 *SOLD
   
7. David Clark H10-13.4 Aviation Headset for Pilots of Fixed Wing Aircrafts P18,000
   
8. Youtheory Ashwagandha 60 Capsules P1,000
   
9. Ashwagandha Futurebiotics Extra Strength 3000mg 120 Capsules P1,000
   
10. Kelsen Danish Butter Cookies 5 Lbs/2.27 Kg P1,800
    
11. Kelsen Danish Butter Cookies Four Count/Tins 454g P1,300
    

Send me a PM if interested.
Thank you all!

Best way to succeed in startups is copying already successful startups. You don't need to be a genius to find an original idea. After all, everything is a remix.
But where do you find these successful startups making millions? Well, its quite simple.
100s of Indiehackers have been tooting their own revenue on Twitter with the #buildinpublic hashtag. You can find them through it but its a tedious process. We can make it much simpler.
Enter Acquire.com, previously known as MicroAcquire.
Acquire is a marketplace for Startup Founders to sell their profit-generating Startups. These are usually small ones that are made by a team of 1-10 people. Since they are small, they are easy to copy.
Acquire shows you everything from Revenue to Profit to Competitors to the Cost it takes to run. What they don't tell you is the exact startup domain.
But if you are smart enough, you can find the exact domain through your OSINT and SOCMINT Skills.
Just sign up at Acquire. Click on your Avatar on top right and click Explore Marketplace.
You can find extremely good ideas on Acquire but I'll list a few that caught my eye:

1. Twitter outreach tool to find, reach and nurture prospects as well as grow your audience

Link: https://app.acquire.com/startup/zq3DbEFLHnZscyLRbTlxE1BosXv2/0wfJfThkimzDeVmJuieS?source=marketplace
This product is a Cold DM tool that has $185 mrr.
The total profit is $1k and the asking price is $30k.
If you scroll down a bit, you'll find the founding date, the team size, the tech stack, the business model, the competitors, and the growth opportunities.
The best part is when you scroll down a little further. You can find the exact Acquisition channels as it connects with Google Analytics.
This is a good idea to build because let's be honest, every business needs leads.
And what better way to get leads than to automate it with a Twitter outreach tool.

2. AI-Powered Roleplay Site running custom LLM model based off Meta's Llama

Link: https://app.acquire.com/startup/fMWCklAW4PPxiJ4xxpGKzu2Prct2/gvkmQYR8o3GFhG9pbYkS?source=marketplace
Notice on the right there are 15 buyers interested. This shows demand. Investors are mostly interested in the fastest-growing startups.
AI-Powered Roleplay is a huge market. AI Girlfriends are a massive Billion Dollar Business and with the recent release of Llama 3, there will be more alternatives like this.
This product is a 1-person product launched last year in June 2023. It has $5k in profit and $520 mrr but massive potential. If you scroll a bit, we get a Chartmogul graph of ARR, MRR, Customers, and Churn rate.

3. AI Photography Studio

Link: https://app.acquire.com/startup/daNCPe3tsEOyluwxQ5PybYIRVA53/KI3d9vSNWsE499iQjQqW?source=marketplace
AI Photography Studios are all the rage launched during the 2nd wave (text-to-image) of AI.
This one made $2.1m profit and $76k MRR. It had a TikTok go viral so you can assume they are acquiring customers to TikTok. Shouldn't be too hard to find, eh?
They have said the competitors are Aragon and Headshot so you can cut those of your list now. There are only so many alternatives. You can nail this startup down even further. The metrics are 100,000+ customers. I'm sure they are boasting it on their landing pages. You can easily find this one.

4. A lead generation platform for businesses to generate and build email lists. 100% Organic Traffic.

Link: https://app.acquire.com/startup/nEOrnThIWNgtBK07TTdQ4Wbn3f73/eB78ZuQwKlVXFaszdnVJ?source=marketplace
This one has 43 serious buyers. The description is extremely enticing. Hands-off and automated with traffic from Google? Of course, who doesn't like that.
4.7 rating on Trustpilot with 380 reviews. And the competitor is Uplead.
Metrics are incredible. ~$50k mrr ($578k / 12 months) with 100-1000 customers. The traffic is consistent.
Try copying the description we found above and paste it into Google:

An all-in-one platform designed for businesses aiming to generate leads by extracting data from various social media channels and quickly building email lists, with an amazing Trustpilot rating of 4.7 based on over 380 reviews from satisfied customers.

And scroll down a bit to see Outscraper and LeadSwift recommended. Open them both up in the New Tab.
Remember the listing had Tech Stack? Yep, we'll use that to nail it down further.
Install Wappalyzer on your platform of choice. I use Chrome so I installed the Chrome Extension.
Reload the websites (Outscraper and LeadSwift) so the extension loads. Now, you'll see only Outscraper is using WordPress and jQuery while LeadSwift only uses jQuery.
But remember, they might be using React for their dashboard which you can only find after login. But I've found an important datapoint. Outscraper was founded earlier than 2022. You can check the Oldest Tab on their YouTube channel.
Therefore, it might be Leadswift.
A few tips:

1. Find their founding date and compare.
2. Find Trustpilot ratings and sort by reviews. Don't forget to search for "leads"
3. Stalk the founders on Linkedin to find their company starting date. You can also do that through YouTube Oldest Search.
4. Reverse-engineer their SEO strategy
5. Check their location on the website. The location in the listing is United States (Florida)

If you just want to build a startup in this niche, then the approximation is more than enough to get an idea of what to build.
However, every listing gives enough info to find them. Some numbers might be misinterpreted to misdirect you. This is basically how you find successful startup ideas. Now you can build them and start marketing them. If you build it and nobody buys it, then you know your marketing sucks. Once you know that, you can improve your marketing skills by reverse-engineering your competitors.
What do you use to reverse-engineer companies? Semrush, SimilarWeb, SensorTower, Chrome Extensions, or anything else?
PS: If you'd like to read the full post with images, you can do so here.
PPS: Bdw, you can also see another post on reverse-engineering business model here.

It's been about 6 months since I broke up with my BPD ex. The whole thing was honestly kind of a whirlwind. We moved in together only after having known each other for 5 months and then 10 months later I kicked her out after I found her messing around with other guys online. And it wasn't just flirting, she was selling nudes and making plans to fuck guys for money. Very extreme behavior. I knew she was a person with a lot of problems, and I always did my best to try and help her, but becoming her cuckolded idiot was a line too far.
So I kicked her out of our apartment and sent her back to live with her parents. The moment she arrived back in LA her entire life took a 180. She went from this very quiet nerdy anime girl to escorting, smoking meth, dating a homeless guy, and doing these obnoxious anti-social irl streams. Think Jerry Springer. Incredibly self destructive behavior. The thing is though, she's just 19 and from a very wealthy family. This all came out of nowhere. She tried contacting me a couple times in the intervening months, but I didn't try to get back together. I just wanted her to leave me alone. Since then, I have had no idea what's been going on with her life.
Fast forward to last week and I happened to be booking a flight to LA for a little mini vacation with a friend, and thought, you know what, why don't I at least try and have lunch with her or something? Things ended tensely and I'd like for us to just be cool, you know? Maybe she fixed her life and things are better. So I reached out to a friend who knows us both to ask his opinion, and he told me straight up, "Don't do it, you are not ready for this." He then proceeds to show me some horrific things. Apparently she had been raped in a homeless encampment and was now pregnant - and was still smoking meth. He showed me a video of her and she looked like a ghoul. I didn't recognize her. She was stammering senselessly and I couldn't make out anything she was saying. I'm not going to lie, I fucking cried. Zo was once a beautiful and intelligent girl, and now she's just this methed out shell of herself who can barely string words together. It's been 6 months and she has totally fallen apart.
With the situation being as extreme as it is, I decided to contact her on her phone directly. I know I can't save anyone from themselves, but, fuck, maybe I could try talking some sense into her - or at least help her get an abortion for what will end up being a crack baby. So I sent a short heartfelt message asking how she is doing. And I got nothing. She didn't respond. And I know she got it. After a day, I had this realization like, what the fuck am I doing? This person obviously wants all this. She decided to speed run ruining her life - I tried to help her get a job, get therapy, and apply to school, but she decided to throw that all way - and for what? Nothing. Just destroyed herself for absolutely nothing in return. And to add insult to injury she won't even answer a basic "are you okay" text during a very dire situation - something that left a very bitter taste in my mouth.
At that moment, I was able to truly let go. There's no helping someone like this and she obviously doesn't want it. So I can't keep blaming myself for her current state - thinking if only I had done X or Y she could have avoided this fate. I can't keep throwing pearls before swine. So this is the end of the saga. I don't expect her to live very long at this point- and honestly I've made my peace with it. I prayed for her and left it in God's hands. I did the best I could and my conscience is clear.
I am sorry for all of you that are here suffering. There is nothing you can do for these people either. There was NEVER anything, you, or anyone else, could have done. It was doomed from the start. The only thing we can do is put this entire thing behind us and keep moving forward. Keep living life or we'll join them in the grave too. So I went to LA, had a blast, and now I'm back home. And I will continue my life as if none of this ever happened.

Sourced from https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/DrinkingGame/ThomasAndFriends

• Whenever a character says "Confusion and delay", take a drink. Take another if it isn't the Fat ControlleSir Topham Hatt.
• Whenever the Fat ControlleSir Topham Hatt says "You're a really useful engine!", take a drink.
• Whenever Gordon says "Oh, the indignity!" or "Express coming through!", drink.
• When a character gets into an accident, drink.
  • Take another one if it's Percy.
  • Take four drinks if it’s Edward or Toby.
• Whenever Thomas does something stupid, drink.
• Whenever Gordon or James behave haughtily, drink.
  • Take another if it isn't Gordon or James, or if it causes an accident (if both happen, take a drink for each one).
• Whenever Thomas complains about his snow plough, drink.
• Whenever the narrator says "Then there was trouble" or "Luckily, no one was hurt", drink.
• Whenever Gordon boasts about himself, drink.
• Whenever James brags about his red paint, drink.
• Whenever Percy asks about the meaning of a word, drink.
• Whenever Duck brings up his Great Western heritage or starts talking about "two ways of doing things", drink (if both happen, treat it as a singular action).
• Whenever the narrator uses the phrase "[insert character's name here] was/felt cross/happy/sad", drink.
  • Take another if it isn't any of those three words.
• When the narrator says "Then, an idea flew into [insert character's name here]'s funnel", drink.
• Everytime the characters laugh spontaneously, drink.
• When Duncan is grumpy, drink.
• When Diesel acts like a jerk, drink.
  • Take another if he bumps an engine from behind.
• When Bill and Ben are Trolls, drink.
  • Whenever they argue, take another drink.
• Whenever Dart says "What he means is", drink.
• When a character says "Bust my buffers!" or "Cinders and ashes!", drink.
• In the Sharon Miller seasons, whenever a character uses rhyming and/or alliteration, drink until you get alcohol poisoning.
• During The Adventure Begins, take a shot every time someone says "See the world". If it isn't Thomas, take a second.
• Take a shot every time someone says "Master of the Railway". Two if it isn't Hiro himself.
• Take a shot in the movies if an insert vocal song starts playing.
• Look through Season 17, and take a drink every time a scene happens at Ulfstead Castle. Better line up a liver transplant in advance.
• Watch Season 18, and take a drink every time a scene happens at Brendam Docks. You probably won't survive after the previous one.
• Every time Spencer acts like a Jerkass, take a sip.
  • If the entire episode goes by without any mention of the Duke and Duchess, finish your drink.
• Take a sip every time the word "streamlined" is said.
• In the CGI seasons, take a drink if an engine other than Gordon pulls express coaches.
• Whenever Edward or Toby indulge in Self-Deprecation, drink.
• Whenever Cranky gets, well, cranky, drink.
• Whenever Marion unleashes her Motor Mouth, drink.
• Whenever Timothy falls for a prank, drink.
• If an engine skives off a job, drink.
  • Take two drinks if it isn't Thomas.
• When Gordon and Spencer race, drink.
• When Ferdinand says "That's right!", drink. Prepare for alcohol poisoning if you're watching Misty Island Rescue or Season 15.
• When Henry is ill, drink.
  • Take two if it's after his re-shape.
    • Another if he's pulling The Flying Kipper and it crashes.
• Take a drink whenever Annie and Claribel are both engaging in Not So Above It All behavior.
  • Take two if Daisy is involved.
• Take a sip when the big engines make fun of the little engines. Take another if it's the other way around.
• Take a drink whenever Thomas and Bertie race each other.
• Take a drink when the Troublesome Trucks misbehave. Take another if they cause an accident, or if you hear their high pitched laugh, or when there are shots of their faceplates.
  • Finish the drink if the accident results in them getting hurt or straight up torn apart and/or mutilated beyond repair from the crash.
• Take a shot whenever engines complain about another engine being late for their trains.
• Take a shot when the passengers complain about Sodor being a bad railway whenever a delay occurs.
• In the model seasons, take a drink whenever an engine rolls their eyes around when they're happy or got into an accident.
• In the model seasons, take two drinks if you spot studio equipment. Take four drinks if you don't need to rewind and pause.
• Whenever Donald and Douglas argue, drink.
• Whenever James says "Here's James!", drink. Prepare for alcohol poisoning if you're watching the late Brenner-era episodes.
• Whenever something bad happens to the Fat ControlleSir Topham Hatt, drink.
• Whenever the narrator says, "The Fat Controller was just looking forward to/enjoying "X and Y", when he hears bad news.
• If you're watching any episode from Seasons 8-16, take a drink whenever you see a goods train without a brake van coupled to it.
• Take a shot whenever Gordon complains about pulling goods trains. Take another if it's James.
• Take a drink whenever the Steamies insult or make fun of the Diesels. Take two drinks if it's the other way around.
• Take a drink whenever the narrator says "His (or [character name]'s) driver and fireman jumped clear".
  • Take two drinks if the narrator doesn't state what happened to the crew at all.
• In the Big World, Big Adventures seasons, take a drink for every Imagine Spot or Just Train Wrong moment.
• In the CGI seasons, take a drink every time Rosie makes a cameo.
• Take a drink every time Daisy encounters a bull.
• Take a drink whenever Daisy speaks Gratuitous French.
• Take a drink when James is the Butt-Monkey.

Hello, I just watched LEMMINO's video and began to do some stuff with "EAST NORTHEAST" and "BERLIN CLOCK". This could be me just connecting dots, where there are no dots.
So the name "Kryptos" itself is German for "cryptos" (I learned this by trying to find a Kryptos subreddit, but instead I found a German cryptocurrency subreddit). Clearly some translating might be involved then. So I had an idea that maybe "EAST NORTHEAST" and "BERLIN CLOCK" aren't really part of the true answer, but rather almost there. This doesn't mean that they aren't part of the plain text, but maybe the text is comprised of individual letters, then the above two iconic pair are just shoehorned in. Kinda like how the morse code has "EE SHADOW EE". Basically its individual letters, that you can translate into German, along with words that you can translate. Now translating the letters just gives you the same letters, but why not? "E E VIRTUALLY E" can become in German "e e praktisch e" (used google translate). Note, these maybe the only actual English words in K4, so that's why Mr. Sanborn won't give out anymore clues as per an NPR interview, or he may have one or two more in there.
So, I translate "EAST NORTHEAST" and "BERLIN CLOCK" and got "Ostnordost" (google translate) and "Berlin-Uhr" (NOT google translate, but Wikipedia and in general). Now this does introduce a big headache to me, which is that technically the translation of "Berlin Clock" in google translate is "Berliner Uhr", but I am going to go with a not literal translation here, but what maybe the more organic one.
Now, I am pretty sure most here know of the question mark "?", that maybe part of K3 or K4. Well, in one of the comments of LEMMINO's video, which he hearted, a person had a great idea that "CAN YOU SEE Q" has its Q actually working as a "?" in its own right. In K2 "X" can be used as a period, so this can be used in the same way. Q or a question mark. This then means the actual "?" is part of K4, or can be. Another great realization was another comment that LEMMINO hearted, being that in the morse code "CQ CQ" is a common alert for "Can anyone hear me?" and SOS is of course "I need help!". Ther are some other great comments int hat thread too. Someone realized "Can you see Q?" can be "Can you CQ?" thus "Can you hear me?". Since K3 is about King Tut (the mummy), "CQ CQ SOS" could be a joke regarding that King Tut is trying to communicate with us, and the similarities is the way to confirm you got it right (this maybe proof that the morse code was supposed to get you to King Tut).
Another good comment was CQ = SeekYou, and maybe another in a different comment thread relating that with "T is your position E" but I think that just has stuff to do with the morse code only.
So back on track, this shows that Ancient Egypt may matter, K4 is likely a question that is flipped, and something German very likely is present, and finally the answer is likely to be a joke which is a possible rhetorical question (Kryptos has jokes in it).
So because of this, I took the German phrases "Ostnordost" and "Berlin-Uhr" and flipped them to become "tsodrontso" and "rhunilreb". From these I found two words, but frankly now I am kinda lost. "tsodrontso" has dront in it which is the Swedish word for the dodo. In fact if you search dront into google (English), you immediately get info on the dodo nicely presented. But dront isn't a word in German or English though. In "rhunilreb" I can isolate out UNIL, which is an acronym for the University of Lausanne. From a simple google search, Mr. Sanborn seems to have no relation with them.
How any of this connects to anything else for Kryptos, I have no clue. But, I still feel this is a valid way to at least be creative. Mr. Sanborn did say we really have to look into that clock, and I am looking into it. Plus there is PALIMPSEST, which may indicate that K4 has two things at once going on, and the idea of translating the plaintext to German, and then flipping it and finding an English question, kind of works (though not literally like a palimpsest actually is). Plus if it is really as simple as ABC, well constantly looping abc gives abcabcabcabcab... which has cab, which in German is taxi (yeah), which can then be looped to be I X AT I X AT I X AT I X... which means not only are the letters Q, U, X, and C important, but also "I", which may become for us you. Still no clue how this relates with Swedish dodo and a Swiss university though. I will say though that East Northeast from the coordinates in K2 seems to go to Sweeden.
Thanks for the read y'all.