Studying for the rma s

We're looking for either a regen healer or non-RPR melee to trial and permanently fill the 8th spot for our DT savage adventures!
RAID DAYS AND TIME:
Wednesdays & Thursdays
7:00 PM CST to 9:00 PM CST
About our static:
We're a static of gray to purple parsers. Members vary from veteran to clearing a couple of savage fights. We are a static that isn't here to rush a clear of the tier as soon as possible, however we will raid with a midcore mindset where we are expected to progress further each time we meet up to raid. Mistakes happen and that is also okay. Goal is to finish the tier before unlock/echo. We're a static that values not only raiding but others aspects of FFXIV and playing other games, or just having time for yourself to do what you like.
As we're all from different NA Data Centers, we will migrate to a couple of different DCs depending how many of us are in the same DC.
Brand new to savage? Don’t have a parse log? That’s okay. It’s more important as long our views, attitudes, willingness, and ethics align. As long you are diligent, your progress will show.
See below:
Being punctual. If you can't arrive on time, arrive earlier.
Being communicative, as such you’ll be gone for a day or vacation or asking questions about mechanics!
Respect! We have members with preferred pronouns!
Being prepared for raid day with food, pots, being melded, and studying ahead of time.
Always striving to become better. Listening to criticism. Understand your job.
Stay focused and keeping banter in between pulls to a minimum.
Current Roster:
DRK, WAR, SGE, RPR, NIN, BLM, RPR
Current Objectives:
Clear P4S and P8S for the ones missing these or need de-rusting. Maybe farm a little for the loot?
Prog point is P4S Part 1 clean up. We don't mind recruiting someone who hasn't done this fight yet. Study and listen to call outs 🙂 (this will probably end up as your trial run/tryouts)
Interested?:
Feel free to inquire more for further details or direct your questions to me via discord (nana.tier). Also feel free to share anything about yourself. Little tidbits or your logs, if any. Your aspiration. Or your savage raiding goals? [Not required, of course.]

Who's to blame: Overbearing family, or college student?
I’m a 19-year-old black guy, and I’ve been grappling with some serious family issues concerning my mother and grandparents. It's a lot to unpack, so buckle up:
Growing up, it was just my mother and I, as my dad was in and out of the picture due to my parents' divorce. My grandparents played a significant role too, doting on me since I was an only child, and my mother was also the sole child in her family. Given our circumstances, my mother tended to be excessively protective, perhaps stemming from my early years spent in and out of hospitals due to medical concerns. Being the center of attention came with the territory, I suppose.
At 17, I began experimenting with substances like nicotine, weed, and alcohol with my best friend, a common scenario among kids my age. I’d sneak around, hiding these escapades from my mother. Freshman year in college rolled around, and so did more experimentation. Unfortunately, someone from my friend circle spilled the beans about my college shenanigans to my mother and their parents, leading to increased suffocation when I returned home. I got banned from my best friend's house for a period of time because of it. Additionally, my mother caught me high once, further worsening the situation. To me, it all felt blown out of proportion, considering it was typical teen/young adult behavior from the peers I was around.
Continuing my transition into college life, my mother never really provided a safe space for open communication. It felt like she was always breathing down my neck, fostering an environment of secrecy. As they say, strict parents breed sneaky kids. Moreover, my family’s insistence on regular church attendance felt stifling.
As I matured, my mother's grip seemed to tighten, suffocating any semblance of space I needed. More often than not, we clashed, and she persistently pushed for a closer bond. With that made coming home for breaks a struggle, and enjoyment going back to school after the breaks were over.
By sophomore year, I found myself delving into my studies as needed, hookup culture, a little bit of partying, piercings, more drugs, and then dating. The girl I was seeing didn’t attend my college but lived nearby. We clicked on a dating site and in real life, and I’d occasionally visit her place once we got comfortable with the idea. Her parents didn't know at first but didn't really care once they found out. In fact, once they met me, they came to like me because of my character and career plans. Though my mother and grandmother reacted with disdain at her and my actions, criticizing her career choice in cosmetology, her White ethnicity, and her action to bring me to her parent's house while they weren't there. With those factors, they accused her of being promiscuous, which is nowhere near the case.
Academically, I’m pursuing an engineering degree, managing to maintain my scholarships despite knowing I could do better. Fast forward to yesterday: I was discussing my grades with my grandmother, with my mother present. Which felt like a horrible mistake as my mother brought up my choices and who I was sleeping with, which snowballed into my mother prying the truth out of me in front of my grandmother. It was so bad my mother wanted to answer my grandmother's questions for me, with an irritated smile on her face, but luckily my grandmother shut her down and waited for my honest responses, which I for the most part gave.
During the conversation about the girl, my grandmother and mother made a joke about me being on a leash like my dog, which, in hindsight, felt more like mockery than humor. Moreover, my grandmother's ominous warning about potential legal consequences if I continued to visit her house against my family's wishes was unsettling. She claimed to have connections to the local police department near my school, which added an extra layer of fear and coercion. With that said my grandmother felt that I'd be better off locked up than be at the girl's house because of unreasonable safety reasons.
Additionally, my mother and grandma resorted to comparing me unfavorably to my cousin, who dropped out of college and got a girl pregnant. This comparison only served to exacerbate tensions and feelings of inadequacy.
Reflecting on everything, I made the tough call to end my relationship to appease my family. They judged her based on superficial criteria, and I couldn’t bear to subject her to their scrutiny any longer, so we broke up.
My relationship with my dad isn’t without its tensions, but he’s the one who speaks candidly, even if his words aren’t sugar-coated. After recent events, tensions with my mother have escalated. I yearn for her to loosen her grip, to allow our relationship to evolve naturally rather than being forced. I could say the same thing about my grandfather as well, but he only stays involved in my academic life.
My friends and my now ex agree – my family’s stance on my relationship and actions was wild. So, I'd like to know, am I 100% at fault or does my family have a part to play? Please help me figure this out. There's still a little bit of tension between me and my mother.

I’m 20 and in this point of my life I had never had someone I’ve known and loved die. He was 85 and lived a long and healthy life. Recently he had gotten sick with chest pains and his heart was so weak that he had to start using a wheelchair, this was only like 2 weeks ago.
He had shortness of breath and chest pains and was admitted to the hospital hours ago, then he died. I can’t believe it, I had loved this man my entire life. He was always such a massive positive influence on my life, and now I’ll never get to talk to him again. I only take happiness in the fact that he never suffered too harshly in the end, but he looked visibly saddened the past few weeks in the hospital, and he was excited for my sister’s wedding fuck.
For some reason I don’t feel as sad as I thought I would be for this moment. I thought I’d be screaming for hours in pain, but when my mom came and told me he passed I was in disbelief. Like I actually feel more shock than anything. I always knew this day would come but I never thought it actually would. Everytime he got sick he always pushed through, this time it feels that way too. When I was told he passed i feel like my body and mind felt like I was just told “he pulled through again”.
I feel sort of angry with myself that I don’t feel more. Like I’m sitting here with tears all over me as I right this but am I emotionally numb or something. I felt immense sadness for other things recently but I should feel the worst sadness of my life right now. I’m sad but mostly what I feel is shock. This doesn’t feel real, like I feel like I’m gonna carry on my day normally, go take a walk, eat some food, study, play some game. Like everything feels normal, it feels like normal day except it isnt. I don’t know how to describe this.
I never expected that this would happen. I can’t believe it. I hate myself for not feeling more. I feel fucking sad and awful right now but I just feel more numb than anything.
I’ve never had a gf, cut off all my friends, I don’t have much reason to live besides pleasure. I would never do anything to myself because I don’t want my family to experience this pain, but I feel like I’m just a walking corpse from this point on. All of my dreams don’t exist anymore. I’m not living for anything im living just to live. Like I would be dead if I could be but I know I can’t. This is all too much. Health anxiety every day, unrequited love, poor.
I remember when my crush when I was younger told her friend she had sex with some guy and how amazing it was. I started crying instantly with my head down, I thought that pain was so great, now I live everyday knowing she will never love me.
But somehow I thought everything would always workout. I thought I would be rich one day, I thought I would have friends eventually, I thought she would love me one day, I thought everyone I love will always be here with me, but I was wrong. Life will never be perfect again. The happiest times are behind me.
I guess I’ll just live everyday just to financially and emotionally support my family and hate everything and everyone otherwise. I just hope there’s a heaven or some shit for him to go to. I hope he gets to see the heaven he always talked about or something like it, and be able to answer all of my questions my childhood self used to ask him all day, after school watching pbs while eating apple slices with peanut butter at their house. One day was the last day I was able to do that and I didn’t even know it.
How do you even deal with loss, what can I do now

Hey guys,
I posted on the Netherlands reddit but I think it’s more appropriate here:
For the past few weeks, I have been considering next year going back for an MBO study for nursing (verpleegkundige). I read somewhere on one of the official Dutch website that an MBO studies requires an B1 Dutch level, which I should obtain shortly in the next month or two, but I don’t feel ready yet to take on a study yet. I’d like to focus on Dutch first for the next year and get as far as I can, then go in 2025.
If anyone has any experience with being a non-native speaker but has done an MBO study, particularly in nursing, could you let me know what to expect? And have you had good experiences with the study or in the field of nursing? Thank you in advance! ✨

Hello everyone, I hope you’re all doing well. I keep suffering from the same problem every single time, and I have no idea how to beat it.
How come even after 2 hours of focus on studying for an exam, I can only retain 50% of the information.
But literally the day of the exam, right before it. I only have to read the material to get a grasp of what it means! It’s like I see things that I could not see before.
How can I make that level of concentration and focus (I could literally read some material and get the basic idea) the baseline?
Sorry if I didn’t explain it that well.
Edit: Forgot to mention, for example there's a paragraph that I read for the exam like 2 days before it, and EVEN if I try to really focus, I dont get it.
But literally the morning of the exam, reading it feels like I have a masters in literature analysis or something.

me (31f) and my husband (32m) have been together for around ten years. we met in college at 20 and 21 and have been inseparable since then. we have almost all the same interests and lead a very active lifestyle. we have both been very adamant about staying child free since we met. and that isn’t something i pushed him into he actually brought it up first when we got together. he’s pretty neutral to kids but i hate them and we both agreed that a child would ruin our lives.
a year before we met my husband did a study abroad in europe and met Sarah. they had a fling but he lives in the east coast and she lived in california so they agreed to break it off after the semester ended and they didn’t keep in touch after. i’ve known about this since we got together but i didn’t care because it was before we met.
sarah found my husband on facebook and reached out to him 4 months ago. she is sick with an aggressive form of cancer and probably has less than six months. she also has an 11 year old little girl named emily that is my husbands child. we’ve since got a paternity test but as soon as i saw the pictures i knew she was his.
we have been to california to meet with sarah and see how we’ll proceed. right now sarah’s mom has moved in with them as a caregiver but she is very elderly and not a long term solution and there’s no other family. sarah is adamant that we take emily in and raise her like a normal family. it is truly heartbreaking to see them but as far as i’m concerned they are complete strangers to us.
my husband is very conflicted about all of this and its even worse now that sarah has been reaching out to his family about it. his mom reluctantly excepted that we wouldn’t have kids but now she is ecstatic and hounding us about taking emily in.
i can’t be a mother. it will ruin our lives and i will always resent emily and could never love her. she’s a sweet kid but i did not sign up for this and have always known i couldn’t be a mother. we’ve talked about this a lot and he’s not even sure he could be a good dad but he feels very obligated and pressured to take her in which i understand.
we’ve talked about a lot of options but i gave him an ultimatum last week that i wouldn’t allow emily into our home and he would have to figure out an alternative solution. this has already turned our lives upside and i don’t think i can take it anymore. i’ve been called heartless by almost everyone we know but i feel like it would be worse for emily to have a “mom” that feels this way. i feel awful and i love this man so much.
i’ve had to leave out a lot and some details might not be very clear so i’ll try and address things in the comments.

During the height of my high regard for the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), among the movies of which I had been a major fan were the Captain America releases. At least two of them. The third film in this mini franchise - 2016's "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" proved to be a major disappointment for me. However, when I heard that Disney and Marvel Films had plans to air a miniseries about the characters Sam Wilson aka the Falcon and James "Bucky" Barnes aka the Winter Soldier, I must admit that I felt a renewed interest in the franchise again.
When I said a renewal of the MCU franchise, I meant it. Aside from a few movies like "ANT-MAN", "BLACK PANTHER", "CAPTAIN MARVEL" and "ETERNALS"; the MCU had become a major disappointment for me ever since the release of 2015's "THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON". One might ask . . . what about the MCU television productions that aired on the Disney Plus streaming channel? Aside from one production that I somewhat liked and one that I loved, most of them have been disappointing to me. Unfortunately, I have to include this follow-up to the Captain America movies, "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER".
Set six months after 2019's "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME", "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER" followed former war veteran/Avenger Sam Wilson, who has resumed working the for the U.S. government, while using his role as the Falcon. When the government recruits Sam to track down and deal with a group of enhanced anarchists known as "the Flag Smashers", former World War II veteran/HYDRA tool/Avenger James "Bucky" Buchannan aka the Winter Soldier decides to join Sam in his mission, due to his lingering guilt as a former HYDRA assassin and their shared experiences as Steve Rogers' close friends and battling Thanos and his army.
Since "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER" had aired on the DisneyPlus channel in six episodes, I had seriously considered ranking the episodes. But like Season three of the Marvel Netflix series, "DAREDEVIL", the more I watched "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLIDER", the more it disappointed me. Aside from complaints about its pacing, the limited series had received a great deal of praise from critics and fans alike. Because of this, I believe it was one of the most overrated productions in the MCU history. People had seemed so focused on little moments and scenes that very few had noticed how the series' narrative seemed to be all over the map. For example:
~\Sam Wilson~* - This limited series is supposed to be a follow up to the events of "ENDGAME" in which Sam had received the Captain America shield from an aging Steve Rogers, a sign for him to take up the latter's costumed role. Was this an attempt by Marvel Films/Disney to make Sam a more relevant character? If so, why? Why did a MCU character have to replace Steve as the new Captain America to be more relevant? Why not allow Sam to continue as the Falcon, only push his role to the forefront as one of the franchise's new leading characters? Some might accuse me of not wanting a black man as Captain America, a topic that was brought up in the series. Frankly, I never wanted another character - regardless of race, gender or ethnicity - to become the new Captain America. That includes Bucky Barnes. Allow Steve Rogers to fade into the background and let Sam (as the Falcon) shine as one of the franchise's new leads. However, the die has been cast. One can only sit back and see if moviegoers are willing to accept Sam as the new Captain America.
Perhaps the MCU had to make Sam the new Captain America in order to make him more relevant. Why would I say that? The showrunner for "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER", Malcolm Spellman, came dangerously close to shoving Sam into the role of the second lead or worst, a role he has been since his debut in 2014's "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER" - a supporting character. During the series' first three or four episodes, someone other than Sam (either Bucky Barnes or Helmut Zemo - two white men) made decisions that allowed the plot to move forward, not Sam. He was simply regulated to being an observer or reactor. The series even managed to undermine Sam's decision not to support the Sokovia Accords in "CIVIL WAR". In thee 2016, Sam became the first Avenger to speak out against the Accords and declare his intentions not to sign it. Yet, according to Bucky in this series, Sam had merely followed Steve's example in rejecting the Accords. And Spellman did nothing to allow Sam to correct this misconception.
~\James "Bucky" Barnes~* - One of the few aspects of "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR" I found enjoyable proved to be the interactions between Sam Wilson and Bucky Buchannan. Despite their lingering jealousy and competition over the role as "Steve Rogers' best friend", the pair's interactions proved to be very entertaining, thanks to the screen chemistry between Anthony Mackie and Sebastian Stan. Unfortunately, Mackie and Stan could not save "CIVIL WAR" for me. Nor could they save "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER", due to its problematic writing. A good deal of that writing surrounded Bucky's character. I have so many questions about his role in this series. For example:
-Why would any official of the Joint Counter Terrorist Center allow Bucky to visit and question Helmut Zemo, the man responsible for the U.N. conference bombing in Vienna, in "CIVIL WAR"? That made very little sense to me. Surely the JCTC authorities remembered how Zemo managed to brainwash Bucky into making his own prison break in "CIVIL WAR"? Also, Bucky was on parole for his activities as a brainwashed HYDRA assassin. Yet, the JCTC had allowed him to visit Zemo? Surely, the showrunner could have allowed Sam, who was serving the U.S. government again, to be the one to visit and question Zemo?
-How on earth did Bucky managed to evade being arrested and charged for helping Zemo escape from the JCTC? The U.S. and other governments should have been suspicious of Bucky after learning about his visit to Zemo.
-Bucky came off as an arrogant school jock, who thought he was entitled to get his way - especially in his interactions with Sam. I found it hilarious that many fans had criticized John Walker aka Captain America aka U.S. Agent for such toxic behavior. Yet, they had turned a blind eye to Bucky's own behavior. And so did the series - up until the last two episodes. Why did the showrunner allow Bucky to get away with this behavior toward Sam for so long without any complaints from the latter?
-I did not care how Bucky had bullied his way into Sam's mission without the latter's consent. What I found even more annoying was the U.S. government's decision to allow Bucky to join Sam's mission after that ludicrous "therapy session" they were forced to attend together.
~\Racism -~* A good number of MCU fans had complained about the inclusion of racism in "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER". I had no problems with this direction, considering the story was about Sam, an African-American man, becoming the new Captain America. However, I had a good deal of problems with how the production explored the topic of racism.
The story of Isaiah Bradley, Marvel's second Captain America, had originated in the comics. In the MCU, he was a Korea War veteran whom the United States Army used as one of several unwilling African-American test subjects for their version of the Super Soldier serum. I realize that both Marvel Comics and the MCU had attempted to use Bradley's experience as a metaphor for the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The problem is that I cannot see the U.S. government and the Army - both racist organizations in the early 1950s - be willing to risk the possibility of creating a non-white super soldier. Despite the recent desegregation of the Armed Forces in the late 1940s. And both the government and the Army had been more than willing to use white soldiers in other experiments.
After saving a group of black American super soldiers from a prison camp, Bradly was imprisoned by the U.S. government for thirty years. I saw nothing wrong with this twist in the character's narrative, until I remembered two things - Bradley had been able to free his fellow soldiers without anyone's help; and nearly sixty years later, Steve Rogers managed to break into the Raft and free those Avengers who had refused to sign the Sokovia Accord. Why was Bradley unable to free himself from prison? This is the man who had defeated the Winter Soldier by breaking the latter's metal arm. And he was not powerful enough to make a prison break, let alone evade capture?
I had assumed Sam's difficulty in becoming the new Captain America would stem from the government's reluctance to recruit a black man for the position. That would explain their decision to recruit the blond-haired John Walker instead. But the series never really made it clear whether political racism had played a role in Walker's recruitment. The series also had James "Rhodey" Rhodes had paid Sam a visit, emphasizing the importance of the new Captain America being black. As it turned out, Sam's own insecurities about becoming Captain America had more to do with him not initially assuming the role. There was also that interesting scene outside Bradley's Baltimore home where the police arrested Sam during verbal argument with Bucky. Although the cops backed away when they recognized Sam as an Avenger, they ended up arresting the parolee Bucky for missing his required therapy appointment. This scene was supposed to be a case of racial profiling. But . . . we might as well be honest. In the real world, the police would not have backed down from hassling Sam. What I found more disturbing was the production's handling of Bucky's arrest. Once the police discovers that Sam was an Avenger; they turned to arrest Bucky for failing to show up for his missing his therapy session. Not only did the police arrest Bucky with a more gentle behavior, they did so, accompanied by Henry Jackman's mournful score, something that did not accompany the moment of Sam being arrested. Were the audiences expected to notice the hypocrisy and racism in the police's handling of the two men? Expected to feel sympathy for Bucky? Or both?
The last episode featured a scene of two black kids playing with toy Captain America shields. Someone had commented that the shields (especially in the hands of non-white children) represented hope to the future of race relations in the United States. Why? How? This country had a biracial president for EIGHT YEARS. Yet, U.S. racial policies have remained problematic even to this day. I can say the same for other countries. The so-called symbolism of this scene only reminded me of how human beings put so much faith in imagery and symbolism. And this strikes me as a FALSE FAITH. Why was taking up the mantle of a costumed hero that had been previously occupied by a white man, the only way for Sam Wilson to become relevant within the MCU franchise? What was wrong with him being "the Falcon"? Sam becoming the next Captain America was not going to save the U.S. in regard to race relations - not in real life and not in the fictional world of the MCU. Looking back on the series, the series' only scenario that seemed to expose racism in a realistic manner, proved to be Sam's failure to acquire a bank loan for his family's fishing boat in Louisiana.
~\Sharon Carter~* - I am certain many MCU fans are aware of this. One of Marvel Comics' most iconic couples happened to be Steve Rogers aka Captain America and Sharon Carter aka Agent 13. She also happened to be the great-niece of Peggy Carter, Steve's love interest during World War II. Portrayed by Emily VanCamp, Sharon was first introduced as a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent in "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER" as a potential love interest for Steve. Despite Sharon's appearance in the following Captain America movie, "CIVIL WAR", their romance never really developed. Many blamed the lack of chemistry between VanCamp and Chris Evans. I never had a problem with their screen chemistry. I had a problem with the lack of relationship development between Sharon and Steve. And I blame Kevin Feige's decision to transform the third Captain America film into a third (and badly written) pseudo Avengers movie. The change in the film's narrative, along with Sharon's failure to appear in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR" and "ENDGAME", left no opportunity for Sharon and Steve to become the romantic pair they had been in the comics. Instead, Sharon became a fugitive from the U.S. government after helping Steve and Sam hunt down Bucky, moved to Madripoor, a city-state with no U.S. extradition and became an embittered criminal known as "the Power Broker".
After "CIVIL WAR", nearly five years had passed before Sharon appeared in another MCU production - namely this series. And what happened? The franchise, with Spellman, ended up completely destroying her character by transforming her into the villain known as Power Broker, the criminal leader of an Indonesian city-state called Madripoor. After helping Steve and Sam acquire their suits and equipment in order to go after Bucky in "CIVIL WAR", Sharon lost her job with the C.I.A. and became a fugitive. She eventually moved to Madripoor, a city-state with no U.S. extradition, to evade capture, survived Thanos' Snap and became an embittered criminal nicknamed "the Power Broker" in order to survive the new world.
What really pissed me off about Sharon's arc between "CIVIL WAR" and "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER" is that her development into a major villain all happened OFF SCREEN. Off screen. Apparently, screenwriters for "INFINITY WAR" had written a draft that included Sharon in the movie. But according to Christopher Markus, he and Stephen McFeeley could not imagine scenes featuring Steve and Sharon trying to make it work in an apartment, because the 2018 movie did not have time to focus on their personal life. Why did Marvel simply fail to allow Sharon to be part of Steve's vigilante team - like Sam and Natasha Romanoff? I mean . . . good fucking grief! And why did Malcolm Spellman believe the only way Sharon could be interesting was to become a villain in "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER"? This was his idea of improving Sharon's character?
~\Helmut Zemo aka Baron Zemo~* - Why did Malcolm Spellman, Kevin Feige and the MCU thought it necessary to bring back Helmut Zemo, the Sokovian-born villain from "CIVIL WAR"? What role did he play in "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER"? I realize that Bucky, of all people, visited the incarcerated Zemo to acquire information on who had created the super-soldier serum that empowered the Flag Smashers. But why did he believe Zemo could provide the answer? Because he thought HYDRA was involved? Bucky or Sam could have searched for information from sources other than Zemo, who had been incarcerated for . . . what? Eight years? Eight years. Zemo managed to become something of a crowd-pleaser, thanks to Daniel Brühl's performance. Otherwise, I found his presence in this series unnecessary.
~\The Big Bad~* - Why on earth did it take this series so long to finally reveal the main villain's identity? At first, the series hinted the Flag Smashers, led by Karli Morgenthau. However, the series tossed other potential candidates for the Big Bad before viewers - John Walker, Helmut Zemo and yes, Sharon Carter. But in the end, Morgenthau and her group proved to be the main villains.
The Flag Smashers were a group of empowered people who believed the world was a better place between Thanos' Snap and the Blip (resurrection of those who had died during the Snap), when Humans around the world managed to unite and form a borderless society, one in which people helped others without any thought to nationalism and bias. Thanks to the Avengers, the world resumed its conflicts between nationalities and other groups. In other words, the borders returned.
Frankly, I have nothing against this ideal. Only Ms. Morgenthau and her followers resorted to violence and terrorism to achieve their goals. Does this sound familiar? It should. The Flag Smashers proved to be another example of characters with a progressive goal, resorting to extremism and becoming villains. This seemed to be a growing trend within the franchise, which I believe began with Erik "Killmonger" Stevens aka Prince N'Jadaka in 2018's "BLACK PANTHER". Since then, the MCU has not looked back at its growing roster of progressive villains. Perhaps I should not have been surprised. The franchise's ambiguous portrayal of an unconstitutional document like the Sokovia Accords, should have been the wake-up call. It seemed as if Kevin Feige, Marvel Films and Disney Studios had finally exposed themselves for the faux progressives they pretend to be. Frankly, this form of villainy has become tiresome to me.
After writing this article, I had considered ranking the six episodes featured in "THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER" anyway. But I decided against it. My dislike of the series made it impossible for me to even bother. Being a fan of the first two Captain America movies, I had truly hoped this series would redeem the franchise. Unfortunately, it proved to be just as disappointing as "CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR". Pity. Perhaps the fourth film, "CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD" will do the trick. I hope so.

This might be a slightly philosophical post. But the aim is to get to the bottom of what you should be truly doing. To truly get the most results.
There seems to be a MASSIVE amount of conflicting information online about how to do this.
“Do stuff that moves the needle forward”
“Do stuff that brings in revenue”
What does this truly mean though. And is it even the right thing. That’s the purpose of this post, to uncover.
When I’ve spent my time on actual needle-moving forward things, like taking business from 0 to revenue, doing all offer development, operations, sales process, marketing myself, it generally has taken me about 6 months to fully ‘try out’ a business idea I’ve had.
Most times it hasn’t worked.
Either it wasn’t profitable. Or there was a big problem somewhere.
I believe fundamentally it’s because I’m moving too slow.
Because it usually takes me around 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential.
When you haven’t sold it or developed expertise in it yourself yet.
And I would say about 5% of the time it does work.
So if it takes 6 months and only 5% of the time it works (where you bring in revenue, no major issues), and each time it doesn’t work you try a new variation of it or something new based on what you learned, then it might take 10 years of trying different things to get the business to work.
Which sounds like it takes way too long.
So I thought about how the top companies move much quicker.
What separates them and my strategy.
And realized they simply had much more people on their team.
If you think about any successful organization who has achieved great things, and is world-leading, usually there is not 1 person on the team.
There seems to be a correlation between number of people on the team and speed of progress they can make in business.
Which goes against what most conventional startup wisdom tells you, most small business content creators etc all tell you to do it all yourself.
Which I’ve done for quite a few years and it’s gone so slowly in terms of overall progress.
If you should ‘do everything yourself’ then most Fortune 500 companies would’ve had single founders, and 1 person on their team. But the vast majority of successful Fortune 500 companies had co-founders.
And most successful businesses I know of, had co-founders.
And as they succeeded, they got more people on the team, and these people helped bring more success, then they brought more people.
Obviously there can be bad staff and not everyone contributes to the success of the company.
But I do believe, based on this, and observing top companies, that generally the more successful they are, the more people were involved with bringing about the success.
Which completely contradicts most information given to startups about ‘lone wolf’, ‘go it alone’. If that were true, Google would have 1 employee. Apple would have 1 employee.
And they would have never gotten off the ground.
Anyway, I may not have explained this perfectly but I do strongly believe the more & higher quality people are working together on something, the stats show these companies tend to do better, and successful companies you see often have more people than less working on them.
From the very beginning and now.
Regardless of the stage they were at.
So going based off this information, that the more people, the better, I have hired 30+ different people for different roles. Over the past few years. Across different businesses. To help speed up the progress in different areas.
From marketing roles, sales process roles, web development, app development, customer service, delivery of services.
And I would say there have been maybe 1 or 2 of them where I was actually happy with the result.
Most times, I would hire someone to do a job, and they didn’t do the job well, despite saying they were experienced.
And showing past examples of their work. And telling me everything I wanted to hear about how good they were.
It would often be that they would end up performing badly in the KPIs I set for them, giving many excuses, asking for help/questions/not solving anything on their own.
And just so many other problems. Like when there were multiple people at the same time on a team, working on the same project, they would blame each other and no one took responsibility despite clear responsibilities.
All telling me how other staff were bad and they were good, but getting conflicting info from all staff where they blame each other for everything so it’s difficult to know who to trust and who is being truthful.
Oftentimes not being reliable or doing what they were clearly asked to do.
Oftentimes trying to outsource the work I game them, to other people and not caring about the quality.
At my expense.
So I lost lots of clients, had low performing areas in the areas I hired for a lot of the time.
To be fair, things happened faster the more people there were.
But they often needed much more from me than they were contributing.
Like they always wanted to get paid more, for doing less work, weren’t reliable, did low quality work, didn’t hit KPIs, missed clear deadlines, always gave excuses, blamed others/external things, always asking how “I” wanted their job to be done, to the point where I was having to literally tell them every single thing to do and become an expert at their job myself, and show them how to do what they were put there to do, or do it myself, and still get a low quality result from them.
Anyway, the list goes on in all the problems I have experienced hiring people.
It really seems like a minefield.
But there were 1-2 people who did actually do well, who were responsive, who did what they committed to do, who hit deadlines, who did what they were asked, who didn’t give excuses. Who were actually honest hard workers who figured out how to solve problems and actually do the job that was asked from them.
Because of the amount of people I hired and the very low % of people who seemed to do their job well, it made me think that I am probably the problem here. If so many people are doing a bad job and not doing what they were actually hired to do. When most other companies seem to succeed at hiring people.
Then it must be a problem with myself and how I am hiring and managing them.
So it makes me think I need to level up in how I hire and manage people.
I’ve tried lots of different businesses and variations of them and some have done okay, some have not.
Mainly the most success I’ve had is in my own freelancing, where I don’t have other people on my team.
Because it’s kind of turned into a headache working with others. Who just seem to have mostly never been able to deliver what they promised without it becoming pointless to hire them in the first place with all the work I’m doing on their behalf and trying to pick up after all the problems and failures they’ve done.
So I’m not sure exactly what to spend my time and resources on.
I have money saved up from freelancing.
Where I can continue to hire people.
But I do feel I’ve had many many bad experiences.
And I believe it’s mostly my fault. Maybe my training, my hiring, my management, at places along the line I’ve not done it well enough.
I’ve tried to make improvements each time but it has kind of seemed like luck to get people who do actually do their job well.
I genuinely want to hire people and succeed in this.
Because if I can successfully work with people to achieve outcomes, rather than relying only on myself, I can build a real business and not just do freelancing.
In freelancing, I was able to make $3k-5k/month but it was very stressful and I hated speaking with clients, and was constantly stressed.
I generally really don’t like socialising with people. Including clients and staff.
And staff often try to get me to socialise unnecessarily so they can avoid doing their job, and pull me away from mine.
So trying to make it work.
I want to make it work with hiring people because if I can do this, I can make 10x-100x-1000x faster progress with other people on the same team.
But I do have a very bad track record so far. So it’s kind of painful returning to it and continuing to have bad experiences.
But at the same time I know it’s me who’s probably at fault because there can’t be this many bad people I’ve hired and it surely can’t be this bad for everyone.
I think the reason is that I’ve been better at managing myself and doing things successfully solo throughout my life.
Like I’ve achieved very good things in solo sports, in academia, and in many areas that don’t require a team, but often become frustrated working in a team.
But I don’t want my business success to be limited to 1 person.
So I truly want to make it work in improving my ability to manage (ideally a large amount of) people in a way where they can actually deliver and it work well.
Because I was capped in freelancing to making $3k-5k/month because I couldn’t take on more clients because I was undercharging and overdelivering and couldn’t handle more due to being massively stressed out and hating it. I was able to work with less clients at times and charge higher, but they never wanted me to ‘outsource’ my work to others or bring on a team, and I felt bad about it because had bad experiences where I had felt like I let clients down, and oftentimes they told me they had hired me because of me, and not wanted me to ‘outsource’ the work.
But I want to make it work.
Building a real business with a team. Not just doing freelancing and relying just on myself.
So I have time and money and resources to put into this.
I have 1 staff member currently who is unproductive. But we have an equity deal so it doesn’t cost me money for them to perform. But costs me lots of time and their performance is extremely weak. Don’t even want to go into detail, but it’s a nightmare. Their performance is about 1/10 but I believe I can raise their performance if I improve my ability to raise their performance.
Anyway. I want to build a team, but not sure exactly what activities are best ways to spend my time.
If I am physically making improvements, I feel I am slowing down the business progress.
Whereas I want to hire and manage people.
I’ve built training so that this co-founder is able to hire people. And these people can use the same training to hire people.
But I don’t currently have training to enable them to manage people.
My fear is that without training, people just ask unlimited questions on how to do something in their role and it becomes pointless to have hired them because I have to do everything they should have done to do it, so they basically just become a robot following very specific instructions. Rather than a human being who can achieve things independently.
So for example, if I made this training, it would take up all my time, whereas I have savings I’ve accumulated from freelancing which I can put into either having the co-founder manage staff, or have the co-founder make management training at the same time to enable more and more staff to hire and manage new staff. To achieve overall objectives and KPIs.
Or I could have the co-founder hire someone to make the training.
Then that frees up my time, my co-founders, time and only takes financial resources to accomplish.
What I want to achieve, is a scenario where I can give staff KPIs and objectives, and they are enabled to hire and manage people who can meet these objectives. Independently without my help required.
They give feedback, and I have a system for feedback to internal improvements can be made based on staff feedback.
Without it being unfiltered, it’s structured and organised so people can’t just get unlimited help/training/whatever from me.
Where they should be able to take actions, iterate, learn, improve, and act as independent thinking people who can achieve objectives themselves. Or within a system where it’s not all tied directly to me.
E.g. I have direct reports going to me.
But they have direct reports who go to them.
Previously I had a system where I did this, but then staff at the bottom of the hierarchy would ask their managers questions, and the managers wouldn’t know the answer so would then ask me the questions, and so jumping over the managers and making me deal with everything.
Whereas I want to build a system where people can make business progress in their specific area, independently without everything going to the CEO. Only important/urgent things are feedbacked to the CEO.
This way I believe much faster progress can happen.
Because I won’t be bogged down by exponentially growing problems.
Like with how it works in any successful organisation.
Tim Cook has only a handful of direct reports. Who each only have a handful of direct reports. And so on.
He’s making the most important decisions, dealing with what’s most important and strategic, with top authority, dealing with everything as a birds eye view, but not doing every employee’s job for them, teaching every employee how to do their job. Picking up the pieces after every employee misses their deadlines, doesn’t do their work, gives excuses, does poor work that doesn’t help the company.
Even in any successful organisation. Each unit/person is making their own decisions, taking their own action, learning from it, practicing themself at improving, gaining their own experience, not all relying on 1 person, every single person in the organisation, just for them to do their job.
In successful organisations, people at every level experience new problems all the time, and don’t need to contact the #1 person at the top just to deal with it.
They come up with a solution and go for it. And iterate. Learn, try to do something better next time. And there’s a constant learning/feedback process going on across the organisation which everyone takes part in, not just 1 person doing every part for everyone.
I believe this structure of modelling what actually successful organisations do is the correct way. Because they’re successful for a reason.
Not this ‘hustle grindset’ BS in the startup/business world where lots of information seems to be saying the wrong thing. It just makes no sense to make every single person 100% reliant on you for them to do their job.
Anyway so I’m thinking about what I should do with my time.
What I want to do, is tell my co-founder what to do, which involves hiring and managing people who do things that move the needle forward in the business, as defined by me, and some of those people also hire and manage people. To have an exponentially growing system of people growing the organisation. And a communication and feedback and learning system and autonomy within the system itself so it can take action, learn, grow, thrive. As a system within itself.
I believe if hypothetically, I did everything myself, then it takes about 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential, and 5% of the time it does. So if I do everything myself, I believe it will take me 10 years to get a business off the ground.
But if I utilise my money and time more efficiently, I can have as many people working on each part involved in validating these businesses as possible.
I don’t know if that is lazy or smart.
I believe it’s both. But mostly smart. Because I believe I can convince, hire, organise, manage people to either work on equity deals or pay in a way where businesses can realistically bring in profit.
My co-founder does very little of what I ask him to do.
And he wants me to be doing individual things.
He objectively is financially and intelligently very poor and has very minimal skills or experience.
Not to be offensive. Just to paint a picture. So since there is conflicting information everywhere in the business world and you need to choose who to trust, I don’t trust what he believes.
Objectively I am much richer in all these areas than him.
So I used to operate on a democratic system with them. But it’s kind of like, in a vote for president, if you have 80% of the population being easily controlled by the media and being very dumb and easy to sway and manipulate into believing anything, and they vote for things which are objectively dumb and go against what the smartest and objectively most valuable people vote for, I don’t want to be held back by a dumb population having authority or being listened to, if they have a clear, long track record of making very bad decisions.
If you were to take business advice from a homeless person with no experience, money or intellect, or a Fortune 500 CEO, who let’s say objectively has massive experience, money, intellect and success. Then I would probably take what the CEO has to say.
If you had to listen to what a scientist vs 12 year old had to say about a scientific topic, you’d probably want to listen to the scientist who studied the topic and is well respected in their field.
So I believe it would be dumb for both of us, if he made decisions, objectively.
But at the same time it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
The Fortune 500 CEO could be telling you what you want to hear, and could have an incentive to lie to you to send you in the wrong direction with bad business advice so you don’t become competition to them, and the homeless person could be honest.
The scientist could be trying to gain fame and get attention to themself to build their career on a lie and fake experiments whereas the 12 year old could be a science savant.
So it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
If I should listen to him or myself.
Objectively.

1. I believe if I spend time building the business via this logic I’ve described above, it can grow much faster, with unlimited people working on it and performing well, if the necessary improvements are made.
   
2. And I believe if I were to do the individual things necessary to do it, it would take 6 months to ‘validate’ each’s potential. I.e. try everything in that timeframe to make it work, build a good service/product, build good sales process, build good marketing, deal with customers, etc, all on your own.
   

Whereas in the first option, other people could do all these things.
Human development over history has happened due to the input of millions, if not billions of people.
There wasn’t 1 person who did all the work to get Carnegie or Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to gain the success they’ve achieved.
They all build an empire off the backs of others.
Did the slave owners do the slave work themselves when they brought slaves to America? No.
Does Elon do all the individual parts necessary to grow the company? No. He leads and controls the people in order to do that.
Does Mark Zuckerberg single handedly get Facebook off the ground? No. There were 10+ people involved. He stole code from others. Who sued him.
All of these people had exponentially growing staff as the company grew, as fuel to grow the company.
So if you have the money and strategy to lead them to success, I believe it surely is possible.
So long story short this is a long rambling piece of writing but I believe there’s very little impact 1 individual person has on the success of a company. Controlling and amassing an army of people who build the company up and contribute to the company sounds more true.
Does 1 person do everything involved in every sports team? No. Each player plays their respective part. Directed by the coach/manager.
Does 1 person do everything involved in musical orchestras? No each musician plays their part. Directed by the conductor.
And so on.
If you can build an exponentially growing team of staff who effectively work together, bring others on, take action to grow the business, learn from mistakes, make improvements, are highly motivated, are led successfully, it can achieve great things. I feel like it’s a delusion that individual people single-handedly grow companies without others.
So what should that person spend their time doing?
Doing all the millions of things necessary to grow the company? Or bring and manage others who some make progress themselves, some bring and manage others, to gain more and more resources to make progress at faster and faster rate.
Do successful people really have only 1 person responsible? No. They have teams of people behind them.
So trying to do the work of 1,000 people as 1 person sounds 1,000x as hard as getting 1,000 people to each do the work of 1 person.
So if you can finance the growth of the company via hiring others.
Let’s assume I can finance this exponential staff growth. Then surely I should do it right?
Like if I were to compete with 1 person trying to grow their business, and I had 1,000+ people, all doing their jobs effectively, being organised, working as a system not all relying on me, the competition where it’s 1 staff member on average would get beaten.
And surely any excuse you could give, I could just hire someone to solve that excuse.
Like “oh but what roles do you hire these people to do?” well I could hire someone whose role is to figure out what roles they should do. “But what if x?” well I could hire someone whose role is to solve that too. And so on. “Oh but do you have enough money to pay these staff?” Yes. And I can hire people whose job is to bring in money. Whether it’s fundraising, raising from
Did Hitler fight WW2 with 1 person? No. He fought it with millions, if not hundreds of millions of people.
Did Amazon/[insert any Fortune 500 company] get to their size today from having 1 staff member who did everything? No. They had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of staff.
Did any successful mom and pop shop/small business get to their size today from 1 staff member? No. They are one of the largest employers in the USA. Which means they hire a lot of people. Successful mom & pop shops generally have more staff the more successful they are.
Armies generally have more success the bigger and more effective they are.
Companies generally have more success the more staff and more effective the staff are.
So surely we shouldn’t hold ourselves back, to use the example of war, it’s like trying to go to war with others who have hundreds of thousands of people in their army, with just 1 person, yourself. Who is going to win? Them.
How are you going to compete with companies with way more staff, and way more effective staff than you? You would have to become exponentially more effective as 1 person which I just don’t know if it’s realistic.
I think it’s more delusional to believe that 1 person can do as well as 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 or more people who are each as effective as that 1 person.
So if you were to win, you would probably want to expand your army/staff and make them more effective, rather than try to make yourself somehow perform on the same level as armies/companies with thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. It’s just delusional to believe you can beat them in my opinion.
In business, you’d have to be extremely skilled at hundreds of different skills, spend 10+ hours on 100+ individual areas of the business each week to compete with 1,000+ staff who, if performing effectively, would crush you.
This is just my thoughts.
Am I being delusional? Come on…
I just feel like this is the way. Just look at the most successful organisations in history. Was it 1 person?
No, 1 person cannot realistically win a war against 100,000+ people. No matter how good they are. They would need to be top 0.00000000001% in skill in the world at what they’re beating the other side at.
Could 1 footballer beat a football team of 100 people of equal ability than them? No.
Could a company of 1 person outperform a company of 1,000 people? No.
So I believe if I can solve the ability to do this, I can grow a team of unlimited size to conquer and beat any problem thrown at us.
It’s just down to control of people.
Money doesn’t exist.
Even biggest most successful companies in the world mostly didn’t get there on their own.
I believe less than 1% of Fortune 500 Companies were bootstrapped. Or something similar.
And this is what I’m saying.
People in the small business/entrepreneur world tell you you need to have everything yourself.
How are you going to outfinance, outcompete companies on complete other levels without acquiring these resources from others? Just relying on yourself.
How could 1 person get more financing/investment in a company from investors compared to 1,000 of equal ability.
It’s never 1 person ‘beating the world’. Or beating the industry on their own.
Maybe if your aspiration is to be an average business.
“Oh but you should do what is best at each level, and it’s different for each level. Start just by yourself until you get X revenue. THEN hire people”
…..Well if you struggle to get X revenue on your own, how are you ever going to hire others?
The others help you grow the revenue in the first place.
I feel like the small business world is too overreliant on the founder and delusional about the capabilities of 1 person when competing against units 100-1,000x + bigger than them.
Come on.
Anything you want to compete in. In business.
Generally you already have competition.
And if you manage to somehow “spot” something they’ve “missed”, they could just copy you and wipe you out with their massive resources anyway.
In my opinion you need to expand your resources as FAST as possible.
Not this BS “oh wait until you get X profit on your own to hire other people”
Well if you’ve only made good profit on your own as a freelancer, and you’ve spent a lot of years trying to get a business off the ground solo, what are you meant to do?
“Oh just make it work” Great advice.
I just feel like there’s too much delusion into what it actually takes.
In a job or as a freelancer. It’s easier to make $3k-5k/month revenue because you’re only competing against individuals.
But when you try to compete against other businesses to make $3k-5k/month profit, you’re competing against businesses with 10x-100x the people, the money, the resources, the everything, to beat you.
So how are you meant to realistically beat them on your own? Without expanding your resources as quick as possible.
So because of this I believe if 1 person on their own is somehow meant to take a business from $0 to $10k/mo profit, then surely it will happen quicker if more people, of equal ability, are trying to make the business $0 to 10k/mo profit.
To be honest I don’t know what the truth is. This is just what I believe the truth is.
Because I’ve consumed so much wrong information from people acting like they have the correct advice in business.
All Youtube videos, articles, courses, claiming to make you successful in business, when in reality it’s just advice that sounds either easy to say or easy to hear.
Like it’s easy to say as a comment to this post, a response that takes 5 seconds to write, like the first thing that comes to your mind, like “just figure it out on your own”. But that’s not necessarily the truth, it’s just easy for you to say as a commenter. Comments aren’t necessarily the truth.
And on the other side business advice is easy to hear. Like “work on your own, make $1m/month, move to X country, live the life, working 2hours/day” which is just pure delusion. And most of the time the content/advice’s purpose is to benefit the business who made it, not the receiver of the advice. Because it’s selling a course or they have ad sense so they just want maximum engagement and views.
And anyone who is successful in business doesn’t need to give any advice. Because they’re applying the advice. Not giving it. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos etc have no strong incentive trying to help others get to their level because they could just make an extra $10M-100M from spending the same time/energy/resources giving advice into growing their business.
They’re never gonna have advice that would help you beat them because otherwise they would’ve applied it themself.
And they are actually incentivized to not want others to truly succeed. Because it means more competition for them and less success for them.
So 99%+ of info online just seems like it’s not true.
I’m trying to figure out what is true and what isn’t.
Honestly though it’s difficult to even trust what anyone says in business. Any advice or feedback. For the reasons given.
Because 99% of feedback is either from people who haven’t truly grown a successful business, or it’s not related to you, or it involved luck, or it’s just like a motivational quote they tell you, or it’s a snarky comment they tell you.
It’s only helpful to them. And you are actually their customer or viewer or their entertainment. Not a successful business yourself. Because it’s just all misinformation that all contradicts with the truth.
So not even sure if it’s worth trying to get advice or if it’s all just pointless, just to figure it out myself from experience, trial and error and learning from my own thinking than relying on any other thinking.
Anyway do you think this is just crazy and I’m going crazy or is there any truth to what I’m saying?
Let me know your brutal honest feedback

This might be a slightly philosophical post. But the aim is to get to the bottom of what you should be truly doing. To truly get the most results.
There seems to be a MASSIVE amount of conflicting information online about how to do this.
“Do stuff that moves the needle forward”
“Do stuff that brings in revenue”
What does this truly mean though. And is it even the right thing. That’s the purpose of this post, to uncover.
When I’ve spent my time on actual needle-moving forward things, like taking business from 0 to revenue, doing all offer development, operations, sales process, marketing myself, it generally has taken me about 6 months to fully ‘try out’ a business idea I’ve had.
Most times it hasn’t worked.
Either it wasn’t profitable. Or there was a big problem somewhere.
I believe fundamentally it’s because I’m moving too slow.
Because it usually takes me around 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential.
When you haven’t sold it or developed expertise in it yourself yet.
And I would say about 5% of the time it does work.
So if it takes 6 months and only 5% of the time it works (where you bring in revenue, no major issues), and each time it doesn’t work you try a new variation of it or something new based on what you learned, then it might take 10 years of trying different things to get the business to work.
Which sounds like it takes way too long.
So I thought about how the top companies move much quicker.
What separates them and my strategy.
And realized they simply had much more people on their team.
If you think about any successful organization who has achieved great things, and is world-leading, usually there is not 1 person on the team.
There seems to be a correlation between number of people on the team and speed of progress they can make in business.
Which goes against what most conventional startup wisdom tells you, most small business content creators etc all tell you to do it all yourself.
Which I’ve done for quite a few years and it’s gone so slowly in terms of overall progress.
If you should ‘do everything yourself’ then most Fortune 500 companies would’ve had single founders, and 1 person on their team. But the vast majority of successful Fortune 500 companies had co-founders.
And most successful businesses I know of, had co-founders.
And as they succeeded, they got more people on the team, and these people helped bring more success, then they brought more people.
Obviously there can be bad staff and not everyone contributes to the success of the company.
But I do believe, based on this, and observing top companies, that generally the more successful they are, the more people were involved with bringing about the success.
Which completely contradicts most information given to startups about ‘lone wolf’, ‘go it alone’. If that were true, Google would have 1 employee. Apple would have 1 employee.
And they would have never gotten off the ground.
Anyway, I may not have explained this perfectly but I do strongly believe the more & higher quality people are working together on something, the stats show these companies tend to do better, and successful companies you see often have more people than less working on them.
From the very beginning and now.
Regardless of the stage they were at.
So going based off this information, that the more people, the better, I have hired 30+ different people for different roles. Over the past few years. Across different businesses. To help speed up the progress in different areas.
From marketing roles, sales process roles, web development, app development, customer service, delivery of services.
And I would say there have been maybe 1 or 2 of them where I was actually happy with the result.
Most times, I would hire someone to do a job, and they didn’t do the job well, despite saying they were experienced.
And showing past examples of their work. And telling me everything I wanted to hear about how good they were.
It would often be that they would end up performing badly in the KPIs I set for them, giving many excuses, asking for help/questions/not solving anything on their own.
And just so many other problems. Like when there were multiple people at the same time on a team, working on the same project, they would blame each other and no one took responsibility despite clear responsibilities.
All telling me how other staff were bad and they were good, but getting conflicting info from all staff where they blame each other for everything so it’s difficult to know who to trust and who is being truthful.
Oftentimes not being reliable or doing what they were clearly asked to do.
Oftentimes trying to outsource the work I game them, to other people and not caring about the quality.
At my expense.
So I lost lots of clients, had low performing areas in the areas I hired for a lot of the time.
To be fair, things happened faster the more people there were.
But they often needed much more from me than they were contributing.
Like they always wanted to get paid more, for doing less work, weren’t reliable, did low quality work, didn’t hit KPIs, missed clear deadlines, always gave excuses, blamed others/external things, always asking how “I” wanted their job to be done, to the point where I was having to literally tell them every single thing to do and become an expert at their job myself, and show them how to do what they were put there to do, or do it myself, and still get a low quality result from them.
Anyway, the list goes on in all the problems I have experienced hiring people.
It really seems like a minefield.
But there were 1-2 people who did actually do well, who were responsive, who did what they committed to do, who hit deadlines, who did what they were asked, who didn’t give excuses. Who were actually honest hard workers who figured out how to solve problems and actually do the job that was asked from them.
Because of the amount of people I hired and the very low % of people who seemed to do their job well, it made me think that I am probably the problem here. If so many people are doing a bad job and not doing what they were actually hired to do. When most other companies seem to succeed at hiring people.
Then it must be a problem with myself and how I am hiring and managing them.
So it makes me think I need to level up in how I hire and manage people.
I’ve tried lots of different businesses and variations of them and some have done okay, some have not.
Mainly the most success I’ve had is in my own freelancing, where I don’t have other people on my team.
Because it’s kind of turned into a headache working with others. Who just seem to have mostly never been able to deliver what they promised without it becoming pointless to hire them in the first place with all the work I’m doing on their behalf and trying to pick up after all the problems and failures they’ve done.
So I’m not sure exactly what to spend my time and resources on.
I have money saved up from freelancing.
Where I can continue to hire people.
But I do feel I’ve had many many bad experiences.
And I believe it’s mostly my fault. Maybe my training, my hiring, my management, at places along the line I’ve not done it well enough.
I’ve tried to make improvements each time but it has kind of seemed like luck to get people who do actually do their job well.
I genuinely want to hire people and succeed in this.
Because if I can successfully work with people to achieve outcomes, rather than relying only on myself, I can build a real business and not just do freelancing.
In freelancing, I was able to make $3k-5k/month but it was very stressful and I hated speaking with clients, and was constantly stressed.
I generally really don’t like socialising with people. Including clients and staff.
And staff often try to get me to socialise unnecessarily so they can avoid doing their job, and pull me away from mine.
So trying to make it work.
I want to make it work with hiring people because if I can do this, I can make 10x-100x-1000x faster progress with other people on the same team.
But I do have a very bad track record so far. So it’s kind of painful returning to it and continuing to have bad experiences.
But at the same time I know it’s me who’s probably at fault because there can’t be this many bad people I’ve hired and it surely can’t be this bad for everyone.
I think the reason is that I’ve been better at managing myself and doing things successfully solo throughout my life.
Like I’ve achieved very good things in solo sports, in academia, and in many areas that don’t require a team, but often become frustrated working in a team.
But I don’t want my business success to be limited to 1 person.
So I truly want to make it work in improving my ability to manage (ideally a large amount of) people in a way where they can actually deliver and it work well.
Because I was capped in freelancing to making $3k-5k/month because I couldn’t take on more clients because I was undercharging and overdelivering and couldn’t handle more due to being massively stressed out and hating it. I was able to work with less clients at times and charge higher, but they never wanted me to ‘outsource’ my work to others or bring on a team, and I felt bad about it because had bad experiences where I had felt like I let clients down, and oftentimes they told me they had hired me because of me, and not wanted me to ‘outsource’ the work.
But I want to make it work.
Building a real business with a team. Not just doing freelancing and relying just on myself.
So I have time and money and resources to put into this.
I have 1 staff member currently who is unproductive. But we have an equity deal so it doesn’t cost me money for them to perform. But costs me lots of time and their performance is extremely weak. Don’t even want to go into detail, but it’s a nightmare. Their performance is about 1/10 but I believe I can raise their performance if I improve my ability to raise their performance.
Anyway. I want to build a team, but not sure exactly what activities are best ways to spend my time.
If I am physically making improvements, I feel I am slowing down the business progress.
Whereas I want to hire and manage people.
I’ve built training so that this co-founder is able to hire people. And these people can use the same training to hire people.
But I don’t currently have training to enable them to manage people.
My fear is that without training, people just ask unlimited questions on how to do something in their role and it becomes pointless to have hired them because I have to do everything they should have done to do it, so they basically just become a robot following very specific instructions. Rather than a human being who can achieve things independently.
So for example, if I made this training, it would take up all my time, whereas I have savings I’ve accumulated from freelancing which I can put into either having the co-founder manage staff, or have the co-founder make management training at the same time to enable more and more staff to hire and manage new staff. To achieve overall objectives and KPIs.
Or I could have the co-founder hire someone to make the training.
Then that frees up my time, my co-founders, time and only takes financial resources to accomplish.
What I want to achieve, is a scenario where I can give staff KPIs and objectives, and they are enabled to hire and manage people who can meet these objectives. Independently without my help required.
They give feedback, and I have a system for feedback to internal improvements can be made based on staff feedback.
Without it being unfiltered, it’s structured and organised so people can’t just get unlimited help/training/whatever from me.
Where they should be able to take actions, iterate, learn, improve, and act as independent thinking people who can achieve objectives themselves. Or within a system where it’s not all tied directly to me.
E.g. I have direct reports going to me.
But they have direct reports who go to them.
Previously I had a system where I did this, but then staff at the bottom of the hierarchy would ask their managers questions, and the managers wouldn’t know the answer so would then ask me the questions, and so jumping over the managers and making me deal with everything.
Whereas I want to build a system where people can make business progress in their specific area, independently without everything going to the CEO. Only important/urgent things are feedbacked to the CEO.
This way I believe much faster progress can happen.
Because I won’t be bogged down by exponentially growing problems.
Like with how it works in any successful organisation.
Tim Cook has only a handful of direct reports. Who each only have a handful of direct reports. And so on.
He’s making the most important decisions, dealing with what’s most important and strategic, with top authority, dealing with everything as a birds eye view, but not doing every employee’s job for them, teaching every employee how to do their job. Picking up the pieces after every employee misses their deadlines, doesn’t do their work, gives excuses, does poor work that doesn’t help the company.
Even in any successful organisation. Each unit/person is making their own decisions, taking their own action, learning from it, practicing themself at improving, gaining their own experience, not all relying on 1 person, every single person in the organisation, just for them to do their job.
In successful organisations, people at every level experience new problems all the time, and don’t need to contact the #1 person at the top just to deal with it.
They come up with a solution and go for it. And iterate. Learn, try to do something better next time. And there’s a constant learning/feedback process going on across the organisation which everyone takes part in, not just 1 person doing every part for everyone.
I believe this structure of modelling what actually successful organisations do is the correct way. Because they’re successful for a reason.
Not this ‘hustle grindset’ BS in the startup/business world where lots of information seems to be saying the wrong thing. It just makes no sense to make every single person 100% reliant on you for them to do their job.
Anyway so I’m thinking about what I should do with my time.
What I want to do, is tell my co-founder what to do, which involves hiring and managing people who do things that move the needle forward in the business, as defined by me, and some of those people also hire and manage people. To have an exponentially growing system of people growing the organisation. And a communication and feedback and learning system and autonomy within the system itself so it can take action, learn, grow, thrive. As a system within itself.
I believe if hypothetically, I did everything myself, then it takes about 6 months to ‘validate’ whether a business has good potential, and 5% of the time it does. So if I do everything myself, I believe it will take me 10 years to get a business off the ground.
But if I utilise my money and time more efficiently, I can have as many people working on each part involved in validating these businesses as possible.
I don’t know if that is lazy or smart.
I believe it’s both. But mostly smart. Because I believe I can convince, hire, organise, manage people to either work on equity deals or pay in a way where businesses can realistically bring in profit.
My co-founder does very little of what I ask him to do.
And he wants me to be doing individual things.
He objectively is financially and intelligently very poor and has very minimal skills or experience.
Not to be offensive. Just to paint a picture. So since there is conflicting information everywhere in the business world and you need to choose who to trust, I don’t trust what he believes.
Objectively I am much richer in all these areas than him.
So I used to operate on a democratic system with them. But it’s kind of like, in a vote for president, if you have 80% of the population being easily controlled by the media and being very dumb and easy to sway and manipulate into believing anything, and they vote for things which are objectively dumb and go against what the smartest and objectively most valuable people vote for, I don’t want to be held back by a dumb population having authority or being listened to, if they have a clear, long track record of making very bad decisions.
If you were to take business advice from a homeless person with no experience, money or intellect, or a Fortune 500 CEO, who let’s say objectively has massive experience, money, intellect and success. Then I would probably take what the CEO has to say.
If you had to listen to what a scientist vs 12 year old had to say about a scientific topic, you’d probably want to listen to the scientist who studied the topic and is well respected in their field.
So I believe it would be dumb for both of us, if he made decisions, objectively.
But at the same time it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
The Fortune 500 CEO could be telling you what you want to hear, and could have an incentive to lie to you to send you in the wrong direction with bad business advice so you don’t become competition to them, and the homeless person could be honest.
The scientist could be trying to gain fame and get attention to themself to build their career on a lie and fake experiments whereas the 12 year old could be a science savant.
So it’s difficult to truly know what the truth is.
If I should listen to him or myself.
Objectively.

1. I believe if I spend time building the business via this logic I’ve described above, it can grow much faster, with unlimited people working on it and performing well, if the necessary improvements are made.
   
2. And I believe if I were to do the individual things necessary to do it, it would take 6 months to ‘validate’ each’s potential. I.e. try everything in that timeframe to make it work, build a good service/product, build good sales process, build good marketing, deal with customers, etc, all on your own.
   

Whereas in the first option, other people could do all these things.
Human development over history has happened due to the input of millions, if not billions of people.
There wasn’t 1 person who did all the work to get Carnegie or Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to gain the success they’ve achieved.
They all build an empire off the backs of others.
Did the slave owners do the slave work themselves when they brought slaves to America? No.
Does Elon do all the individual parts necessary to grow the company? No. He leads and controls the people in order to do that.
Does Mark Zuckerberg single handedly get Facebook off the ground? No. There were 10+ people involved. He stole code from others. Who sued him.
All of these people had exponentially growing staff as the company grew, as fuel to grow the company.
So if you have the money and strategy to lead them to success, I believe it surely is possible.
So long story short this is a long rambling piece of writing but I believe there’s very little impact 1 individual person has on the success of a company. Controlling and amassing an army of people who build the company up and contribute to the company sounds more true.
Does 1 person do everything involved in every sports team? No. Each player plays their respective part. Directed by the coach/manager.
Does 1 person do everything involved in musical orchestras? No each musician plays their part. Directed by the conductor.
And so on.
If you can build an exponentially growing team of staff who effectively work together, bring others on, take action to grow the business, learn from mistakes, make improvements, are highly motivated, are led successfully, it can achieve great things. I feel like it’s a delusion that individual people single-handedly grow companies without others.
So what should that person spend their time doing?
Doing all the millions of things necessary to grow the company? Or bring and manage others who some make progress themselves, some bring and manage others, to gain more and more resources to make progress at faster and faster rate.
Do successful people really have only 1 person responsible? No. They have teams of people behind them.
So trying to do the work of 1,000 people as 1 person sounds 1,000x as hard as getting 1,000 people to each do the work of 1 person.
So if you can finance the growth of the company via hiring others.
Let’s assume I can finance this exponential staff growth. Then surely I should do it right?
Like if I were to compete with 1 person trying to grow their business, and I had 1,000+ people, all doing their jobs effectively, being organised, working as a system not all relying on me, the competition where it’s 1 staff member on average would get beaten.
And surely any excuse you could give, I could just hire someone to solve that excuse.
Like “oh but what roles do you hire these people to do?” well I could hire someone whose role is to figure out what roles they should do. “But what if x?” well I could hire someone whose role is to solve that too. And so on. “Oh but do you have enough money to pay these staff?” Yes. And I can hire people whose job is to bring in money. Whether it’s fundraising, raising from
Did Hitler fight WW2 with 1 person? No. He fought it with millions, if not hundreds of millions of people.
Did Amazon/[insert any Fortune 500 company] get to their size today from having 1 staff member who did everything? No. They had thousands if not hundreds of thousands of staff.
Did any successful mom and pop shop/small business get to their size today from 1 staff member? No. They are one of the largest employers in the USA. Which means they hire a lot of people. Successful mom & pop shops generally have more staff the more successful they are.
Armies generally have more success the bigger and more effective they are.
Companies generally have more success the more staff and more effective the staff are.
So surely we shouldn’t hold ourselves back, to use the example of war, it’s like trying to go to war with others who have hundreds of thousands of people in their army, with just 1 person, yourself. Who is going to win? Them.
How are you going to compete with companies with way more staff, and way more effective staff than you? You would have to become exponentially more effective as 1 person which I just don’t know if it’s realistic.
I think it’s more delusional to believe that 1 person can do as well as 10 or 20 or 50 or 100 or more people who are each as effective as that 1 person.
So if you were to win, you would probably want to expand your army/staff and make them more effective, rather than try to make yourself somehow perform on the same level as armies/companies with thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. It’s just delusional to believe you can beat them in my opinion.
In business, you’d have to be extremely skilled at hundreds of different skills, spend 10+ hours on 100+ individual areas of the business each week to compete with 1,000+ staff who, if performing effectively, would crush you.
This is just my thoughts.
Am I being delusional? Come on…
I just feel like this is the way. Just look at the most successful organisations in history. Was it 1 person?
No, 1 person cannot realistically win a war against 100,000+ people. No matter how good they are. They would need to be top 0.00000000001% in skill in the world at what they’re beating the other side at.
Could 1 footballer beat a football team of 100 people of equal ability than them? No.
Could a company of 1 person outperform a company of 1,000 people? No.
So I believe if I can solve the ability to do this, I can grow a team of unlimited size to conquer and beat any problem thrown at us.
It’s just down to control of people.
Money doesn’t exist.
Even biggest most successful companies in the world mostly didn’t get there on their own.
I believe less than 1% of Fortune 500 Companies were bootstrapped. Or something similar.
And this is what I’m saying.
People in the small business/entrepreneur world tell you you need to have everything yourself.
How are you going to outfinance, outcompete companies on complete other levels without acquiring these resources from others? Just relying on yourself.
How could 1 person get more financing/investment in a company from investors compared to 1,000 of equal ability.
It’s never 1 person ‘beating the world’. Or beating the industry on their own.
Maybe if your aspiration is to be an average business.
“Oh but you should do what is best at each level, and it’s different for each level. Start just by yourself until you get X revenue. THEN hire people”
…..Well if you struggle to get X revenue on your own, how are you ever going to hire others?
The others help you grow the revenue in the first place.
I feel like the small business world is too overreliant on the founder and delusional about the capabilities of 1 person when competing against units 100-1,000x + bigger than them.
Come on.
Anything you want to compete in. In business.
Generally you already have competition.
And if you manage to somehow “spot” something they’ve “missed”, they could just copy you and wipe you out with their massive resources anyway.
In my opinion you need to expand your resources as FAST as possible.
Not this BS “oh wait until you get X profit on your own to hire other people”
Well if you’ve only made good profit on your own as a freelancer, and you’ve spent a lot of years trying to get a business off the ground solo, what are you meant to do?
“Oh just make it work” Great advice.
I just feel like there’s too much delusion into what it actually takes.
In a job or as a freelancer. It’s easier to make $3k-5k/month revenue because you’re only competing against individuals.
But when you try to compete against other businesses to make $3k-5k/month profit, you’re competing against businesses with 10x-100x the people, the money, the resources, the everything, to beat you.
So how are you meant to realistically beat them on your own? Without expanding your resources as quick as possible.
So because of this I believe if 1 person on their own is somehow meant to take a business from $0 to $10k/mo profit, then surely it will happen quicker if more people, of equal ability, are trying to make the business $0 to 10k/mo profit.
To be honest I don’t know what the truth is. This is just what I believe the truth is.
Because I’ve consumed so much wrong information from people acting like they have the correct advice in business.
All Youtube videos, articles, courses, claiming to make you successful in business, when in reality it’s just advice that sounds either easy to say or easy to hear.
Like it’s easy to say as a comment to this post, a response that takes 5 seconds to write, like the first thing that comes to your mind, like “just figure it out on your own”. But that’s not necessarily the truth, it’s just easy for you to say as a commenter. Comments aren’t necessarily the truth.
And on the other side business advice is easy to hear. Like “work on your own, make $1m/month, move to X country, live the life, working 2hours/day” which is just pure delusion. And most of the time the content/advice’s purpose is to benefit the business who made it, not the receiver of the advice. Because it’s selling a course or they have ad sense so they just want maximum engagement and views.
And anyone who is successful in business doesn’t need to give any advice. Because they’re applying the advice. Not giving it. Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos etc have no strong incentive trying to help others get to their level because they could just make an extra $10M-100M from spending the same time/energy/resources giving advice into growing their business.
They’re never gonna have advice that would help you beat them because otherwise they would’ve applied it themself.
And they are actually incentivized to not want others to truly succeed. Because it means more competition for them and less success for them.
So 99%+ of info online just seems like it’s not true.
I’m trying to figure out what is true and what isn’t.
Honestly though it’s difficult to even trust what anyone says in business. Any advice or feedback. For the reasons given.
Because 99% of feedback is either from people who haven’t truly grown a successful business, or it’s not related to you, or it involved luck, or it’s just like a motivational quote they tell you, or it’s a snarky comment they tell you.
It’s only helpful to them. And you are actually their customer or viewer or their entertainment. Not a successful business yourself. Because it’s just all misinformation that all contradicts with the truth.
So not even sure if it’s worth trying to get advice or if it’s all just pointless, just to figure it out myself from experience, trial and error and learning from my own thinking than relying on any other thinking.
Anyway do you think this is just crazy and I’m going crazy or is there any truth to what I’m saying?
Let me know your brutal honest feedback

I have two exams soon, I’m studying law in the UK. One is on Tuesday and one is on Thursday, I haven’t done anything for either of them and I need to clean my room for a bedroom inspection tomorrow (I live in student accommodation.) It’s extremely messy and dusty and worse than the other times I’ve had to frantically clean up just before a room inspection. All I’ve done is sit here and scroll on my phone feeling miserable, I feel like I need to do so much but I haven’t been able to do everything. I’m so stressed out.
I haven’t been diagnosed with ADHD, I have been diagnosed with dyspraxia and that affects executive functioning, but I’ve been suspecting for a while now that I do have ADHD as well and I intend to seek a diagnosis ASAP. I’m never on this subreddit but it occurred to me I may get better advice than in the dyspraxia subreddit.
I really struggled with procrastination in sixth form and the advice I got from my counsellor wasn’t really helpful at all, I never found a solution and only did okay because I’m naturally smart. I feel like I’m about to fall apart again, only this time the consequences are going to be much greater because I’m paying 9000 pounds a year to be here and if I don’t do well then I’m wasting time and money and throwing my future career away. I don’t know how I’m going to explain to my parents that I did shit on my exams because I did no work. I cannot go on living like this, do any of you have any advice you could give me on how to deal with this?

On the 15th I had a heart attack while at work. Now my work is very demanding and physical.
I work at a limestone mine, we manufacture cement. While climbing down several flights of stairs, I got this sharp pain in my chest. I thought man I ate my lunch to fast.
Once out both of my arms became heavy and started to hurt real bad. We continued to our next stop with the chest pain increasing.
I told my partner, we work in pairs for safety, I said let’s go to the break area, I’m going to drink some Gatorade and call 911 I’m having a heart attack.
It took 25 minutes for the ambulance to arrive, out plant is out in the middle of nowhere. The ride to the hospital was nearly 30 minutes and in the meantime the pain is getting worse.
Once I arrived at hospital it was no more than 15 minutes and I was upstairs.
My heart attack lasted over an hour, once the second stent was put in, 95% blockage, the pain started subsiding.
The next day the cardiologist came to my room and this is where things went south kinda.
I have been on testosterone replacement for 12 years and I explained I was not going to stop after he told me to. I explained it was not just recreational but other factors, I also explained I was not going to stop my daily does of 5mg cialis, because their are benefits and it was prescribed for late night bathroom trips but the sex it amazing.
I asked the doctor to show me scientific studies on testosterone and he just looked at me. I provided him with several where there were no cases that showed testosterone affected the heart.
The next day he called me instead of coming to the room. He informed me I was being discharged and I would need to find another cardiologist for a follow up appointment
Any thoughts? I am out of work for 2 weeks

Hi, This is more of a cry for help rather than a rant. I am Indian (its imp for the lore), just completed my senior year and got accepted into ASU on the basis of my 2nd choice of degree - B.A in Global Logs. My first choice was Finance, so when i got my acceptance offer. Not being admitted for Finance was a bit of a shock, upon inspecting ASU told me that i don't meet the requirements. What requirements you ask? even i had no clue back then. After more digging, I found out that they have a criteria that I should have completed 4 years of maths and 3 years of lab science ( lab science for finance, nice...) . From where I come from, u have the option to not opt for maths in the last 2 years of your senior years which is what i did. I took the subjects -: Economics - Accountancy - Marketing - Business Studies. And for some reason people at ASU don't want to understand that INDIA isn't the same as the U.S when it comes to education system. I tried telling them that i completed these requirements back when I was in 7th grade but unfortunately they only consider transcripts starting from 9th grade. So basically I'm f'ed and cant study either finance or accountancy cz I completed the requirements long before I was supposed to.
What i wanna know at the end of the day from you fellow Sundevils is whether i can talk my way into finance or accountancy, AFTER I reach uni and meet with an admission officer irl. Cz emailing isn't cutting it. It might not sound like it in this rant, But I've been at this little game for close to 2 months now.
CHEERS

Hi everyone,
I'm a 22-year-old male who recently went through a breakup with my girlfriend of 3 years. She’s a year younger than me, and we graduated together. We broke up two months ago, and I’m feeling really conflicted about it.
Our relationship had become toxic, with frequent fights and both of us struggling with our own issues. I felt that we needed to address our personal problems separately. We were planning to study abroad and live together, with dreams of getting married and starting a family abroad. However, I worried that if we didn’t break up then, we’d end up trapped in an unhealthy relationship.
For the past two months, I’ve been seeing a psychologist weekly, and it’s been incredibly helpful. I’ve realized that I might have contributed to many of the issues in our relationship. It’s hard to separate what was my fault and what she needs to work on herself.
She was a wonderful person—gentle, empathetic, and truly loving. However, I was bothered by her lack of ambition, which I didn’t find attractive. My psychologist helped me see that I probably imposed my worldview on her. I expected her to follow a similar path to mine (good grades, internships, etc.), which I now realize was wrong. My well-intentioned advice likely made her feel constantly judged, affecting her self-confidence, which later became another issue in our relationship.
Reflecting on the relationship, I’ve come to understand that I took many things for granted. I could have been a better boyfriend by showing more interest in her passions and being more romantic. I can’t stop thinking that if I hadn’t imposed my ideas of success on her and had been more supportive, she might have had more self-confidence and become more ambitious by herself.
However, she did have self-confidence issues before we met, due to a toxic family environment. When we broke up, I tried to do it respectfully, explaining my reasons and ending on good terms. I asked for no contact, which she mostly respected (except for one message wishing me good luck with something important I had to do). She asked if we could set a date to possibly try again, but I said I didn’t want to make any promises because of the uncertainty and potential for more hurt.
I’ve been wanting to reach out to her to see how she’s been, but I don’t want to hurt her again. I’m still learning a lot about myself and trying to change my utilitarian view of the world, shaped by my life experiences.
We’ll both be starting the same studies abroad in a few months, so we’ll see each other again.
I don't know if this is relevant at all, but for some context, I believe in having a deep connection before any physical relationship, so I’m not interested in dating anyone else right now.
I’m conflicted because I now see her in a new light and realize I wasn’t the best boyfriend. But I’m also unsure if this newfound perspective is genuine personal growth facilitated by my sessions with the psychologist, or if it’s just regret and idealization. Additionally, I’m afraid that if we were to try again, she may not have addressed her personal issues yet.
Has anyone been in a similar situation? How do I balance these feelings, especially considering she has her own issues to work through?
Thanks for reading, and I appreciate any advice you can offer.

Does anyone have any suggestions on a masters program that specializes in studying ADHD. I’m sure I’d have to get a masters in psych with a focus on ADHD. Or if there is any other way to become someone who specializes in helping people with ADHD please let me know.
I’m looking for schools specifically in the US, I’m open to learning about anywhere but am leaning towards schools in TX or NYC.
More info on career goal: I’ve struggled with knowing what I want to do in my life for a while. I came across some people online who specialize in ADHD coaching. I don’t know how popular this is but I’ve struggled with chronic ADHD my entire life and never heard of this. I want to be someone who specializes specifically in adult ADHD. I feel like theres many resources for kids out there, especially when it comes to helping navigate school. But I want to study and help people with adult ADHD. ADHD and it’s effects can change with age and when your brain develops. I’ve struggled so much in my adult life even with a diagnosis at a young age and going to a school that specializes in learning differences. I want to learn more not only for myself but in order to help others because i know i can’t be the only one out there who struggles to the degree i do.
Any advice on how I can make this my career would be much appreciated!
Thank you!! :)

Introduction: Online Work for Mothers: Get Paid for Their Opinions :
In the digital age, mothers are discovering new and innovative ways to contribute financially while staying at home. One of the most engaging and flexible opportunities available is getting paid for sharing opinions. This burgeoning field offers mothers a unique way to leverage their insights and experiences, turning thoughts into income.
The Rise of Online Opinion Jobs :
The internet has revolutionized how businesses collect data. Companies are eager to understand consumer behavior, preferences, and trends. This demand has given rise to various online platforms where individuals, particularly mothers, can voice their opinions on products, services, and concepts. This feedback is invaluable for companies aiming to refine their offerings and stay competitive.
Benefits of Getting Paid for Your Opinions :
Earning money for your opinions comes with a host of benefits. It’s flexible, allowing you to work from anywhere at any time. There are no strict deadlines or quotas, providing a stress-free way to earn extra cash. Plus, it can be quite fulfilling to know that your insights are helping shape future products and services.
How to Get Started :
Starting is simple and requires minimal effort. Begin by researching reputable survey sites and market research panels. Look for platforms with positive reviews and clear payment policies. Sign up, complete your profile, and you’re ready to start taking surveys and participating in studies.
Finding Legitimate Survey Sites :
Not all survey sites are created equal. It’s essential to find legitimate ones to avoid scams. Look for well-known platforms like Survey Junkie and Makesurveymoney .. These sites offer a variety of surveys and pay reliably. Check online reviews and forums for user experiences before committing.

• Survey Junkie : Survey Junkie The best Survey Site to get paid for your opinion For Moms, Complete your profile toget matching surveys y Take online surveys anywhere, anytime, and on any device. Earn points by successfully completing each survey, Redeem your points instantly for cash via PayPal or e-Giftcards “The surveys aren't complicated.” You Can eran 800$/ Mounth START ERAN NOW.
• Makesurveymoney : MakeSurveyMoney is a platform where your opinion matter and can earn YOU cash. your opinion are valuable and you can monetize your time by taking part in our surveys. Start now From your Home to voice your opinion and get rewarded with MakeSurveyMoney, You Can eran 500$/ Mounth, START ERAN NOW.

Understanding Market Research Panels :
Market research panels often provide higher payouts than standard surveys. These panels involve more in-depth studies and may require a bit more time. However, they can be more rewarding. Nielsen, Pinecone Research, and Ipsos i-Say are excellent examples of reliable panels that value thorough feedback.
Balancing Work and Family Life :
Working from home requires a balance between professional tasks and family responsibilities. Set specific times for completing surveys to ensure you’re not overwhelmed. Communicate with your family about your work schedule to create an environment conducive to productivity. Flexibility is key to maintaining harmony.
Success Stories: Moms Making a Difference :
Many mothers have successfully integrated online opinion jobs into their daily routines. These success stories are inspiring. Take, for instance, Jessica, a mother of two who earns a steady income by participating in surveys during her kids' nap times. Or Maria, who uses her evenings to contribute to focus groups, earning enough to pay for family vacations. These real-life examples showcase the potential of turning opinions into financial contributions.
Conclusion :
Getting paid for your opinions is a viable and flexible option for mothers looking to earn extra income. It’s a unique way to influence products and services while maintaining a balance between work and family life. As more mothers embrace this opportunity, the impact of their collective voice will continue to shape the marketplace. Embark on this journey today and start turning your valuable insights into earnings.

For context I’m 19F, in my second year at university
A year ago, a great part of my then friend group built an organization at my school, and left me along with a couple others out of it. I didn’t fight to get in, but a few of my friends who did ended up part of the organization. I figured if they’d wanted me there I wouldn’t have had to fight for it, they would have invited me. Not even sure I would’ve managed to get in if I had fought.
As a result I lost a lot of friends as they all became closer to each other through this organization. I was left out of outings, birthdays etc until it became clear I wasn’t part of the group anymore.
I still have a few friends I love and for who it doesn’t matter whether I’m « part » of this organization or not. But I’m not one of the main friends anymore, I’m on the periphery, nobody is bothered when I join outings but no one cares to invite me either.
I was so embarrassed at how many friends I’d lost this year that I didn’t want to have a birthday party, even though my real friends would definitely have loved that, I just didn’t want to accept how little « real friends » I had left. Especially since they all have more friends than me..
So now I’m an unconfident mess, and this has been reflecting on my dating life and schoolwork as well.
I started dating almost a year ago, after the « exclusion » from my friend group. I’ve been non stop getting attached too quickly, to the wrong people even. I got in a relationship with a guy who I knew I wasn’t compatible with, just because I was scared he’d leave (and he did leave). And now I’m obsessed with this new guy I’m seeing and terrified he’s gonna ghost me even though he isn’t what I’m looking for long term either. There’s been two other similar stories as well.
At school I haven’t been doing badly but definitely under my capacities. I know I can do better.. I procrastinate a ton, I believe I’m terrible at everything I do even though I’m studying something I genuinely love. I waste days and days feeling sorry for myself while scrolling on my phone…
I feel lonely and unconfident, unwanted and like nobody would understand my thoughts. Some days I’m happy and everything is fine, I get motivation, read a nice book, run, see friends, work and I feel great. But everytime I feel like I’m feeling better reality ends up catching up, it’s been a never ending cycle for over a year now, and I’m tired of it.
Even my therapist doesn’t understand, he thinks I’m fine but I don’t feel fine. I feel cut out from the world, like everytime i want to express my feelings no one really listens. I just want to wait for someone to come and save me but I know I have to do that myself. I feel like I could change and do better if I just decided to. Like it’s that simple. But I don’t change, I’m stuck, I’m too weak.

My girlfriend and I were together for two years, part of it was long distance. We were previously good friends for 5 years, then she was the one that caught feelings and pursued me first. During our relationship she always told me things like “I’m the one”, we talked about how we would get married and grow old together, she made so many promises that she was 100% sure of me and that she’d never leave. She would say things like “we’ve known each other in every lifetime”. We got together even though I was leaving for a masters study, she said she thought she’d never do long distance again but for me it was worth it, bc she was 100% sure I’m the guy she wants. I left a week after we got together, and I was gone for about a year. During that time we visited once a month, it was always great. I eventually moved back and we spent another year together in person. I’m sorry if this post is too long.
She ended things about a month ago. During the breakup she gave me very vague answers so I couldn’t get the closure I needed. I decided to reach out a week after the breakup to ask why she did it, and what she said killed me inside.
She said that she knew we were compatible and I’m an amazing person but felt like she was settling for me, and she didn’t want to live her life like that when she thinks she can find something better. She said she believes in that soulmate connection with one person when you know deep inside you that this is “it”, and she didn’t feel like that with me, she didn’t think I was “it”. But we did say to each other during the relationship that this was “it”, she told me so many times that I’m the one, so I don’t know how a flip just switched in her brain. She also said she realized she didn’t love me in the way “real love” is, and maybe she just loved the idea of me. She said she always felt the need to be accepted and loved by people and I made her feel like that. She said when you truly love someone you’d sacrifice things for them, and she wouldn’t sacrifice things for me. She said she was forcing herself to be comfortable around me, and it wasn’t the type of comfort that it should be with “the one”.
How the fuck does it take you two years to realize you don’t love someone in the way “real love” is? Especially after all the emotional intimacy we shared. How could you be uncomfortable with me? I was her first kiss, her first hand hold, she said she was saving those things for the right person and she did them with me. Why would she feel like shes settling for me when she’s the one that pursued me first? She went all out to “get me” and be in a relationship with me. Am I really the type of guy that gets settled for? That hurts like hell. She said she was having all these thoughts during the last 4 months of the relationship. But literally a month ago, I felt that she’s been a bit cold, and I asked if everything was okay. She said “nothings wrong, I’ve been really stressed with school/work. But nothings wrong with us, maybe something’s just wrong with me with all the stress. But we’re good, that doesn’t mean I don’t love you or that I’d ever give up on us, I’d never do that. Don’t worry I still love you and I’ll always be here.” She said that word for word. So she was lying to me? Why would you lie instead of communicating openly? If she had told me she was having those thoughts it would’ve been easier for me, but she gave me that reassurance and then blindsided me a month later. I told her it’s normal to lose feelings in a relationship after a while, that eventually that initial spark or honeymoon phase ends, and that’s when the real relationship starts and you work on building a life together. Love eventually becomes a choice and not just a feeling. But she said she wouldn’t lose feelings with the right person. Now I’m the wrong person when she literally told me a million times that we were always meant for each other. I told her I think she’ll end up being disappointed when she realizes there is no “one” person that gives you that magical feeling for life, you eventually reach a point where you have to choose that person everyday. Relationships are hard and most of them end up losing that initial spark, but it’s an opportunity for a new kind of love to blossom, a love based off commitment and loyalty to each other. That’s the only way a relationship can last forever. And during our relationship we even acknowledged that fact together and we told each other that if the feelings fade we will always choose each other no matter what happens. It makes no sense to me. And if she actually lost feelings and fell out of love, that’s fine. But to say she never loved me in the way “real love” is, that makes no sense to me and it’s killing me inside. Have I just been blind and stupid the entire relationship? How does it take TWO YEARS to realize that? She said to me, “maybe you can choose someone and settle for them and learn to love them, but I believe there’s one person out there that is meant for me and when I find them I will know it deep inside me.” Yea, I believed that too. I believed it because I thought it was you. Just because I chose you doesn’t mean I’m settling for you or learning to love you. I thought you were meant for me. It’s so ridiculous I don’t understand, she used to be so sure that I was the one, she knew it deep inside her that I was. And now she’s saying that when she finds it, she’ll know. Well you knew it with me and now you don’t.
Part of me understands why she lost feelings, we didn’t really have a strong base. We were together for only a week before I left for a year. I feel like it wasn’t enough time for the physical attraction to build up and to get to know each other in person. By the time we visited each other, a lot of time had passed and the spark wasn’t the same as the beginning, it was kinda awkward at first. We got into a serious committed relationship talking about future marriage, before we ever hugged each other. She was scared to kiss me, maybe that’s why she said she was forcing herself to be comfortable. But eventually we kissed and it was great. During the visits it felt like everything was going great and that our relationship was getting stronger. I didn’t think that she was uncomfortable. I feel like if we had done all the intimate things in the beginning, we would have a base to build off of and the spark would be alive.
Also I keep blaming myself and wondering what I did wrong. I’m just certain that it’s my fault, that I made her lose attraction. Maybe I wasn’t manly enough or attractive enough. Maybe I was too boring or uninteresting or too “stable”. Being in love with someone basically means you have to be sexually attracted to them first, that’s what separates family love from romantic love. Maybe I didn’t do enough to keep her attracted to me, so she felt like she lost feelings. It was really hard with the distance. I tried, I really tried. I would always flirt and tease her, I tried not to let the relationship feel like it was a platonic friendship over time. I was always confident and “manly” with her, I stood my ground when she did things I didn’t like, I wasn’t needy. We sexted and video called all the time. I always planned amazing dates. I tried to keep the fun alive. I don’t know what else I could’ve done to keep her attracted. I truly feel like if we had been in person the whole time, it would’ve worked and she would’ve still been attracted to me. It’s just different when you’re there physically. But we both knew this, we acknowledged that it was gonna be hard and the feelings may fade, but we said we’d always choose each other no matter what. Maybe it was inevitable with the distance, but at the end she said it wasn’t because of the distance, she believes with the right person the distance wouldn’t matter. So I just wasn’t the right person for her, I was for a while, but I let her lose attraction for me. Your view on love and attraction may differ, but I learned that it’s the guy’s responsibility to keep a woman attracted, it’s about how he acts and behaves that keeps her attracted. So it’s my fault she lost attraction, it’s something I did. For example when I look back at the first visit, a mistake I made was asking to kiss her instead of just going for it. She said no, maybe because I came off as unconfident and that turned her off. I was so nervous during the first visit because there was so much expectation built up inside my head. Maybe that prevented me from being able to genuinely enjoy myself around her and attract her. Eventually though, we got comfortable with each other and we kissed and it was great. I felt the spark was there. I don’t think she met someone else, I asked her and she said no. Yea maybe she could’ve lied, but i know her and I don’t think she would do that. She said “you know me, I would never allow myself to do that while I’m in a relationship. The reasons are solely because I don’t feel in love with you anymore.”
We hit a little rut near the end because we were both very busy, but I didn’t think it was concerning because she always gave reassurance and made it seem like everything is fine. It feels like shit hearing that someone was settling for me. Why wasn’t I enough? I keep looking back and thinking what I could’ve done different to keep her attracted. I keep nitpicking at myself and feeling insecure about the way I am. She was so sure of me in the beginning so I must’ve done something along the way to make her lose feelings. She let me tear my walls down and trust her fully, then she left. It feels like I’m not worthy of love because she saw something in me and decided she didn’t want me. What hurts the most is that to me, she was “it”, to me she was the one. And she said that to me too and I believed her. I felt that she truly meant it when she said that. She would tell me she was always attracted to me and had feelings during our friendship but she “locked them in a box” because she was too afraid. She even told me that I was a walking green flag and that I was perfect and I did nothing wrong. It hurts to know she thinks that yet she still decided she didn’t want me. It kills to know that one day she’ll get married, he’ll get to hold her and kiss her and have a family, and it won’t be with me. I can’t stand the thought of her being intimate with someone else. And it’s the thought that, whoever she ends up with, will be better than me in a way. She will love him more than she loved me. He will make her feel what I couldn’t make her feel. And I’m blaming myself so much that I couldn’t make her feel like that anymore. I’m grieving the future that we both planned together. I feel so betrayed, I feel like shit. Most of all I just really miss her, we knew each other for 7 years and now we’re just strangers again.
I’ve been hurt before, I’ve had a few breakups, but this one hurts the most. I don’t know what it is about this girl that makes me feel like I’ll never find anyone better. I know that time heals everything but I feel like this has damaged me on a deep level, I feel like I can’t let my walls down again. I don’t want to love again and risk getting hurt. I can’t invest myself fully into someone if I’m always afraid they’re going to blindside me. I know a breakup shouldn’t define your self worth, but it’s just the idea that the person I loved doesn’t see herself spending her life with me anymore, that makes me feel really bad. It’s the thought that she saw something in me that made her decide she doesn’t love me. She analyzed our relationship and thought “I want someone better”. The thought that it’s my fault, that it’s something I did. I didn’t have enough “game”. I couldn’t keep her attraction high. I can’t stand the idea of her getting married one day and finding her “it”. Of course I want her to be happy but I’d be lying if I said that doesn’t kill me inside.
Nobody is perfect but she was close to it. She’s such a rare breed, she had everything I wanted in a woman and it’s so hard to come by. I wish I had a reason to hate her but she’s genuinely an amazing person. She did nothing bad to me, we barely fought and when we did it was very gentle. Our entire relationship was pretty much perfect up until the end. I’ve never been with someone that was this compatible with me. She’s the kindest human, she’s intelligent, she’s very mature, she’s beautiful inside and out, she’s very warm and gentle. And the fact that she’s such a sweet and genuine person makes it way harder. If she had cheated or something I think this would’ve been easier on me, because I’d see her as a bad person. But she’s not a bad person. It hurts way more knowing that she was feeling like she wanted to end things, but at the same time she was trying to convince herself to love me, because she didn’t want to hurt me. She didn’t want to break her promises, she was trying so hard not to, but in the end she couldn’t lie to herself anymore. Why do I have to feel like someone has to convince themselves to love me? Why does someone have to force themselves to believe I’m the one? Why can’t anyone ever just truly believe it with their entire soul, that they want to be with me. When I asked for reassurance and she told me she still loved me and would never give up, she was trying to convince herself because she didn’t want to hurt me. It was all lies. Every “I love you” in the last 4 months was a lie. I feel like such an idiot that I was sitting there for the past 4 months thinking that everything was going great. She was just faking her affection the whole time. Imagine hearing that someone was forcing themselves to love you. No one was forcing you! The exit door has always been open, no one forced her to stay, no one forced her to pursue me in the first place. I told her many times that I just want truth and transparency in our relationship, yet she hid all of those things. She said she hid them because she cared about me and didn’t want to hurt me, and she was trying to make it work. But if she truly cared for me, she would know that I deserve honesty, I deserve to know the truth even if it hurts. I don’t deserve to live in a lie. If she cared for me she would let me go find someone who truly loves me, instead of just pretending to love me. By lying, she was only caring about herself, to relieve herself of the guilt. The breakup would’ve been way smoother if she just told the truth from the start, but now I feel like an idiot who sat there for 4 months thinking that everything was going well, when in reality it wasn’t.
There’s so many things I loved about her. I loved the way she cries during every movie, she thinks she’s too sensitive but I think it’s beautiful to feel your emotions that deeply. I loved the way her face lights up when she smiles. I loved how she would call me just to tell me silly little things about her day. I loved her curiosity and wonder for the universe. I loved how she would run into my arms when she saw me. She just understood me, and I understood her. I can’t hate her, I wish I could, but I just love her with all my heart. I don’t think I’ll ever stop. Even when 20 years pass and I’m over this and we’re both married to other people, I will still love her and wish the best for her. I miss her so much, I miss talking to her. I know we can't be friends, but I really wish I could still have her in my life. But I shouldn't wish that I guess, because she decided she wants to live her life without me in it. I can’t believe she could decide to lose me forever when she always said she could never live without me.
The worst part is, I reacted to the break up very emotionally. I showed how hurt I was, I wrote a long paragraph, and I brought up all the promises she made. That was a mistake, it probably killed any ounce of attraction she had left. If there was any chance of her coming back or realizing it was a mistake, I destroyed that chance. I made it look like I can’t live without her. I didn’t beg for her back at all, but I kept pushing for answers and explanations. I asked her what I did wrong and stuff, and that made me look super desperate. I should’ve just accepted the break up immediately and cut off all communication. Maybe then she would’ve thought about it, she would wonder why I wasn’t upset and have second thoughts about her decision. It would make me look more attractive in her eyes. But no I ruined it forever. Now all I want to do is salvage some respect, to make her see me as a valuable person. Not as someone who can’t live without her. Deep down I really want her to have a change of heart, I want her to feel re-attracted somehow, after having some time and space away from the situation. But I ruined her image of me. Now I’m looking back and analyzing every little thing about our relationship and wondering what I should’ve done better. I realized I made a lot of mistakes, which at the time I didn’t think were mistakes, but now looking back it’s probably my fault she lost attraction. I didn’t do enough.
I told myself during the relationship that “everything is temporary, don’t get too attached, life can change at any moment”. I know those things because I’ve learned my lessons from the past, but this is still killing me. I know almost everyone has been heartbroken, I’m nothing special, every human has been through this before. I just need to hear that it wasn’t my fault or that I’ll find someone better eventually. I’m blaming myself a lot right now and I keep thinking that she wouldn’t have left if I had been attractive enough. I generally consider myself a confident person but this has set me back a lot, it’s ruining my self esteem. Maybe I have attachment issues that I need to work on. I know that time will heal this, but right now I can’t imagine myself finding someone that’s better. I feel like the idea of “the one” has been ruined for me. I want to believe it, but I don’t think I do anymore. Even if I find another person who I think is the one, there’s always the possibility that they will change their mind. There’s always a chance that all of their words and actions were just lies. A lot of people get into relationships because they love the idea of being in love, not because they are actually in love with the person.
Thank you for reading this far, I know it’s a long post. I needed somewhere to vent, I don’t have many people to talk to. When I cry, I cry alone. And during the act of crying I start to hate myself for being such a bitch. I know it’s perfectly okay to cry and feel your emotions but it’s hard to escape the conditioning that I’m used to. I have friends and family but, I can’t express my emotions the way I did in this post. People have their own lives and worries and they don’t want to deal with someone’s silly heartbreak I guess.
TL;DR - my gf and I broke up a month ago, she said she was settling for me and that I wasn’t the “one”, even though she made promises and assured me that she wouldn’t leave. I keep blaming myself and wondering what I did wrong.

As the title says I (M22) and my girlfriend (F22) of a little over two years just broke up. It came as a complete shock to me as we had just returned from graduating college to our hometowns, which are about 10 minutes apart.
For context, the past couple months leading to the breakup and before college graduation were definitely hard on us. She’s been studying for the CPA so she didn’t have hardly any free time, and when she did this time would be mainly dedicated to seeing people who wouldn’t be in our city after graduation. I understood these choices, but it was still hard to not be upset when I often felt like an afterthought. This would often lead to me expressing my discontent and her then taking her frustrations about her grueling schedule of work and studying out on me. These arguments often repeated as I think I never felt like I found true resolve and she felt like I never fully understood the level of stress she was under.
All of this is to say, I still loved every bit of being with her. I could take the bickering and arguing because the moments when everything clicked were unforgettable. I truly felt like she was my best friend and the love of my life. This is why her breaking up with me came as such a shock, because it had felt no matter how many times we argued at the end of the night we’d be in each others arms hugging and making up. The arguments obviously weighed on her more than me and I guess I never noticed.
As for the advice I’m seeking, she left our breakup very open. While we talked she told me multiple times she still loved me and that she just needed space to get her head right to focus on her exams. She said she didn’t want this to be the last time we saw each other and the whole right people wrong time thing. So am I naive for believing this? Should I just fully move on? I still think about her everyday and it’s hard not to want her back, so should I just follow my heart and go talk to her? I really don’t know what to do, I just can’t fully believe that this would be the end. Thanks for the advice and letting me vent.

For context, please note I couldn't be further removed from being a car person, and as I've said in another post on this subreddit, part of what's led me to study Luminar is my visceral distaste for the act of vehicular driving, which may be exacerbated by being Autistic/ADHDer.
Therefore, I care a lot about vehicle safety. I care a ton about the prospect of vehicle autonomy.
I also care about analyzing an investment in Luminar with the utmost intellectual and temperamental rigor. Ice running through the veins.
Having said all this, though I likely won't need to purchase a vehicle for another handful of years, I plan to test drive the EX90 as soon as possible to better understand Luminar's technology. As of this writing, the scheduling of EX90 test drives on Volvo’s website is unavailable.
Currently, off the top of my head, here are a few basic questions I'm likely to have about Luminar's lidar when going to the Volvo dealership to test drive the EX90. I recognize the odds of receiving satisfactory answers to all of these questions (at least initially) might be slim.

• During the test drive, are we able to test/confirm that the vehicle's lidar is working properly? Can I see the lidar in action while test-driving the car myself? I wish to experience the sensation of the vehicle braking on its own.
• Upon purchasing this vehicle, how can I, on my own, safely test the vehicle's lidar at various points in time to ensure it's working properly?
• Are there indicators within the vehicle itself that signal that the lidar is working properly, and which could signal if the lidar's performance has decreased or if the lidar isn't working at all?
• Is the functionality of the lidar covered by the vehicle's standard warranty? What aspects of this lidar's hardware/software aren't covered by standard warranty? What role would extended warranty (which I don't recall ever purchasing for a vehicle of mine) play into all of this?
• Are there any preventive maintenance steps I could take as the owner of this vehicle to help extend the useful life of this vehicle's lidar?
• What impact could dead insects and other filth sitting on the surface of the lidar have on its performance, and what, if anything, should I be doing about that?
• If general lidar hardware issues need addressing, who specifically would be performing the repair (does it depend?), could the vehicle still be driven while the lidar is being repaired/swapped (pending installation/calibration/etc.), and (ballpark) what's the ETA for general repair completion?

Hey guys, is anyone in Las Vegas and able to snag the babytee and merch for me? My girlfriend saw the pieces on instagram and loved them, but unfortunately we are on the east coast. She is taking the LSAT in a few weeks and I’d love to surprise her since she’s been studying so hard. I’d be happy to pay you for the pieces, cost of shipping, and a little more for your time!!
She is a large in the shorts and a medium in the shirt.