Hey! So currently I have a 1370 (superscore 1380; highest math is a 700). Here is my score report from May 4. What chapter of Erica Meltzer’s book can I use to get my Info and Ideas + Craft and structure sections up? What part of 1600.io’s orange book (I have v1 and 2) can I use to get my problem solving and data analysis + geometry and trigonometry sections up?

Hello, seniors. I am preparing for the FAM exam, and I plan to use ASM for study materials. However, I want to practice with CA in the last month.
I have a few questions about CA.

1. Is it enough to purchase the CA questions for just 30 days? I have about two hours to study each day, and on weekends I can dedicate at least two-thirds of the day or the whole day.
   
2. How do the CA questions work? I heard they are divided by difficulty levels. Are they designed to simulate the actual exam, or are they just a bunch of questions?
   
3. I also heard that the CA questions are scored. What score should I aim for to be well-prepared?
   

I will also familiarize myself with the sample questions, so please don't worry.
Thank you, everyone.

The global glass flake coatings market is expected to witness a notable Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of approximately 5% from 2024 to 2030. This growth is primarily propelled by the increasing demand to enhance equipment performance and lifespan, coupled with the expansion of the oil & gas industry worldwide. Moreover, the escalating need for high-performance and advanced coatings across diverse applications is anticipated to drive further market growth throughout the forecast period.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=128264
Market Trends:
Rising Demand for Corrosion Protection: Glass flake coatings are increasingly being utilized for corrosion protection in various industries such as oil & gas, marine, and infrastructure. As corrosion poses a significant threat to equipment and structures, there is a growing emphasis on preventive measures, driving the demand for durable and corrosion-resistant coatings.
Advancements in Coating Technology: Technological advancements in glass flake coating formulations and application methods are enhancing performance and durability. Innovations such as self-healing coatings, UV-resistant formulations, and environmentally friendly options are gaining traction, catering to evolving industry needs and regulations.
Growing Preference for High-Performance Coatings: Industries are increasingly opting for high-performance coatings to ensure long-term protection and cost-effectiveness. Glass flake coatings offer superior resistance to chemicals, abrasion, and UV exposure, making them a preferred choice for demanding environments such as offshore platforms and industrial facilities.
Expansion in Infrastructure Development: The ongoing expansion of infrastructure projects, particularly in emerging economies, is driving demand for protective coatings. Glass flake coatings are used to safeguard bridges, pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure assets from corrosion, extending their service life and reducing maintenance costs.
Shift towards Sustainable Solutions: Environmental concerns and regulations are prompting industries to adopt eco-friendly coating solutions. Glass flake coatings with low VOC (volatile organic compound) emissions and minimal environmental impact are gaining popularity, aligning with sustainable development goals and corporate sustainability initiatives.
Market Opportunities:
The glass flake coatings market presents abundant opportunities driven by several key factors. With the increasing focus on corrosion protection across industries such as oil & gas, marine, and infrastructure, there is a growing demand for durable and high-performance coatings that can safeguard assets from harsh environments. The expansion of infrastructure projects, particularly in emerging economies, offers significant growth potential for protective coatings, including glass flake coatings, which are essential for preserving bridges, pipelines, storage tanks, and other critical infrastructure assets. Moreover, the shift towards sustainable solutions and eco-friendly coatings aligns with environmental regulations and corporate sustainability goals, creating opportunities for manufacturers to develop and market environmentally responsible products.
According to the recent report published by RC Market Analytics, the Global Glass Flake Coatings Market is expected to provide sustainable growth opportunities during the forecast period from 2024 to 2030. This latest industry research study analyzes the glass flake coatings market by various product segments, applications, regions and countries while assessing regional performances of numerous leading market participants. The report offers a holistic view of the glass flake coatings industry encompassing numerous stakeholders including raw material suppliers, providers, distributors, consumers and government agencies, among others. Furthermore, the report includes detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the global market considering market history, product development, regional dynamics, competitive landscape, and key success factors (KSFs) in the industry.
Browse the Full Report Discretion @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/glass-flake-coatings-market/
Geographically, the glass flake coatings market report comprises dedicated sections centering on the regional market revenue and trends. The glass flake coatings market has been segmented on the basis of geographic regions into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. Glass flake coatings market estimates have also been provided for the historical years 2020 to 2023 along with forecast for the period from 2024 - 2030.The report includes a deep-dive analysis of key countries including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, China, Japan, India, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, among others. Thereby, the report identifies unique growth opportunities across the world based on trends occurring in various developed and developing economies.
The Glass Flake Coatings Market Segmentation:
By Substrate:

• Steel
• Concrete

By Resin:

• Polyester
• Vinyl Ester
• Epoxy

By End-Use Industry:

• Marine
• Oil and Gas
• Chemical
• Industrial
• Construction
• Others

By Region:

• North America
• Europe
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East & Africa

Major players in the global glass flake coatings market include Akzo Nobel N.V., PPG Industries, Inc., Jotun A/S, The Sherwin-Williams Company, and BASF SE. These companies are actively pursuing market growth through strategies such as expansion, new investments, service innovations, and strategic collaborations. By entering new geographical markets and acquiring other businesses, they aim to leverage joint synergies and gain a competitive advantage.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=128264
Key Questions Answered by Glass Flake Coatings Market Report:

• Product popularity and adoption based on various country-level dynamics
• Regional presence and product development for leading market participants
• Market forecasts and trend analysis based on ongoing investments and economic growth in key countries
• Competitive landscape based on revenue, product offerings, years of presence, number of employees and market concentration, among others
• Various industry models such as SWOT analysis, Pestle Analysis, Porter’s Five Force model, Value Chain Analysis pertaining to Glass Flake Coatings market
• Analysis of the key factors driving and restraining the growth of the global, regional and country-level markets from 2020-2030

About Us:RC Market Analytics is a global market research firm. Our insightful analysis is focused on developed and emerging markets. We identify trends and forecast markets with a view to aid businesses identify market opportunities to optimize strategies. Our expert’s team of analysts’ provides enterprises with strategic insights. RC Market Analytics works to help enterprises grow through strategic insights and actionable solutions. Feel free to contact us for any report customization at sales@researchcorridor.com.
Media Contact:
Company Name: RC Market Analytics Pvt. Ltd. Contact Person: Vijendra Singh Email: sales@researchcorridor.com Visit us: https://www.researchcorridor.com/

I need help understanding the best way to structure a game. I have a basic understanding of all the components I need and encapsulating functionality within nodes, but I can't seem to connect everything the way I need.
To explain this I'm going to use a gardening game as an example. In this game I would have:

• A Tile Map that renders the map and holds data about if the tile can be used for gardening or if they contain a rock or a tree.
  
• A player controller that has Inventory as a child. Inventory being a script that extends resource with an array of all the Items/Tools.
  
• Tools defined that the player can use. These all extend Tool which extends Resource. Tool has an interact function defined on it that each Tool will implement. (Hoe, Scythe, Watering Can, Axe, Seed)
  
• A dictionary somewhere that maps the Tile Map coordinate to a Plant.
  

What I'm trying to figure out is how to best connect the player with the different nodes. The Player and Tile Map would both be on the same level in the hierarchy.
Things I am assuming:

• I want to handle the input in the Player script, I'll need the Player's equipped item, and the player's position to get the correct tile on the Tile Map.
  
• The player will call the interact function on the tool.
  
• The tool's interaction won't always be successful.
  

When planting a Seed, I'll need to make a modification to the Player's Inventory and the Plant will need to be added to the dictionary. The opposite is true when harvesting Plants.
My thought was to call the Tool function and have it return true/false on whether the action was successful. The Player could then make the appropriate modifications to the Inventory. And it could emit a signal to some parent class that holds the Plant dictionary.
But my questions are:

• How should the Player have access to the Tile Map?
• Should I create a GardenManager class that handles the dictionary?
• Would it make sense for the GardenManager to be a child of the Tile Map? If so, would I just call that directly from the Player rather than emitting a signal?
• I was hoping that from the Player I would just be able to call the interact function and each tool's interact function could handle all of the logic. This way I don't need to separately handle each individual Tool from the Player script. Would it be bad practice to pass in the Tile Map, dictionary, and Player Inventory. Especially seeing as not all the Tool's need all of these objects.

I know this is a very long post and I greatly appreciate any feedback people can provide. Maybe there are sample games available that I can read through to better understand structuring within Godot.

I 22(F) maybe autistic. I am from india and its very rare to speak about topic such as mental health here.They will straight up think you're suci- dal and hate you for thinking about it.
Anyways, the thing is i am, has and always have been hyper fixated with things.Like mosquitoes biting me at night which makes me very very very upset for god knows what , broken hair strands touching my hand or leg when i try to sleep makes me very very angry enough that I can't sleep for several hours, thinking about why a friend did me dirty or an ex , my question has always been ' maybe its because I can't understand emotions properly they are like this to me and i sort of get it because they probably are struggling too ' but all the time thats not the case.They act out on me , i get upset they get distant and now i get very guilty cause they would not explain why even if i reach out to ask politely.
I have been hyper fixated on my flaws for past 2 yrs because of a breakup. It wasn't a long term relationship just few months but it was the first time i was in a relationship, they randomly broke it off and this left me vulnerable and extremely confused.
I am still sort of fixated on this topic and i journal so not to speak of it because my friends have told me to shut up and move on from it, but its hard idk why.
I am fine moving on , staying single, being with someone else , but it could be a subconscious thing , i saw them in my dreams , which makes me remember again and spiral me out.
I rarely change my daily routine... One time something creepy happened to me in my place and my friend offered me to come to their place so i can stay for the night and my thought was ' How can i sleep on that mattress its not my mattress'. I said thank you but declined it.
I can't use public toilets unless there are very clean and barely any people , in recent years i have gotten better at using public toilet , before i used to hold it in all day which i know is not good.
I have trouble making eye contact. This has given me a big phobia, 'fear of being seen'. It has affected me a lot socially, i have been better these days but sometimes i would go back to square one.
I feel everybody looks at me when i walk on the road , and when i am like nah they do be looking, but like makes me wonder why am i even scared its just eye contact, then they do prolonged threatening eye contact which is very scary.
I cover my room with black out curtains so nobody can peep me from outside. This stresses me a lot like what if i am sleeping or using my phone in the chare then i see faces in my window oof.Nothing has happened like that but i had privacy issues as a child because i lived in a very cramped room with my parents.
I don't understand emotions and how tp comfort people like at all. I rather cry alone than in front of people and this makes me think why they cry with people and they comfort them with hugs and and words and sometimes i want that too but like how ... I get upset when someone sees me cry lol.
I do think i have sensory issues too.Some noises are not it for me like loud noises like crackers and the type of noises which are immediate and i have not expected it to happen like a steel pipe clanking on the floor or chalk screech.
I imitate people around me to make them comfortable and wonder why they never do that to make me comfortable. I also find it very hard concerntrating at class because the teacher keeps on making eye contact.
I get depressed once in a while and that depression makes me upset and gets me more depressed and i cant reach out because they never understand me , they just think i should understand their struggle not mine.
I was lowkey joking when i thought i had autism few hrs ago tbh i didn't even know what were the signs of autism. As a child when i used to get upset i used to stop talking, close the door and not talk for hours. Even now i need to "charge" my battery and not talk to anyone or meet anyone once i am back from college.
I did an AQ test from several different legit sources online and they said i am highhh on autistic spectrum and i should go to a therapist or something....
I do agree but I don't have the money for it yet and i don't know where to go .... So for now i am satisfied with the " maybe"
Any advice or suggestions? Do yall think i am autistic?

First of all I want to say that I really would like to believe. This post is not coming from someone that would like to not believe or hates religion or something. I truly believe Christianity is a good thing in the world and the teachings of Jesus are obviously good. These are all simply questions of its authenticity, not of the values being taught.

1. How can you explain seemingly insane stories like Noah’s Ark? It seems insane to genuinely think that a few guys built a wooden boat thousands of years ago that was able house two of every animal to ever live. On top of that they would need to also pack enough food for all these animals, and finding space for enough food for just 2 elephants would be difficult, let alone that hundreds of thousands or millions of other animals on board. Did the animals just poop and pee on each other the whole trip? How did they keep all the animals around before boarding? Obviously tracking down and catching all these animals would take years at minimum, and then finding a place to keep all these animals without them eating each other or starving to death or just escaping seems unlikely. And what about the insects? How did they catch every species of bug? Did they get them all in a jar? How did they not fly away at any point before boarding the boat?
   
2. If God created Adam and Eve and every other animal at the same time, why are there no accounts of humans interacting with dinosaurs? I would imagine someone would have written something at some time to indicate this, or at least a drawing, and it doesn’t exist. On top of this, how can you explain no dinosaurs existing now, of any kind, and how do you explain the amount of fossils we have found that date them back further than the Bible says the Earth has existed? And how do you explain the amount of fossils we have that shows slow change of species as they evolved and developed of hundreds of thousands and millions of years if they were all created at the same time approximately 6000 years ago?
   
3. Why would God create Satan? You can say that he allows for free will and that is why Satan was allowed to continuing existing, but this doesn’t really follow when there is multiple times in the Bible that God intervened with people’s free will to save people or get what he wants done, so why not get rid of the embodiment of evil? Why allow Satan to interact with Adam and Eve, especially when they were “innocent” and didn’t know any better, and why do we all have to pay for their mistake when God could have prevented it entirely. God obviously knew it was happening considering he is all knowing, so why did he allow it? You could say it was a test for Adam and Eve, but if he knew it would doom all of mankind why would he allow it? He intervened for much less in other parts of the Bible, but not when all of humanity will be cursed due to the actions of 2? And further, why does God allow Satan to have such reign over this world? Why does he allow Satan to control so many parts of this world when he could destroy him at any point he wanted to?
   
4. I don’t think the existence of God answers any real questions about our existence. People say that we are so complex that there is no way there wasn’t a creator and that there is no way we just evolved this way, but doesn’t that bring up more questions than answers? If we are so complex we needed to be created by some higher being, who created God? He is like 10 trillion times more complex than us, and somehow he doesn’t have a creator? And then people would say well God is infinite and he just is and has always existed, but couldn’t I just say that about the universe? And if just by chance God exists and always have, I don’t find it more unlikely that we just happened to evolve by chance to be the way we are.
   

These are not all my questions but I want to keep it relatively short. Thank you for reading and I look forward to reading other perspectives.

Can someone give me an easy way to do this question? I made the mistake by thinking that Quantity A was actually (2/7^Pv)^Pv and just did the operation via substitution (P=10000) and thought a decimal number to the power of any number above 1 would be getting smaller, so I selected B.
During the after test review and did the math by doing P=2/7 and the number should still be decreasing at each operation no? ((2/7)^(2/7+7/2))^... etc. because the operation would always result in a number greater than 1, so the value would be decreased after 2 runs of the operation.
Why is it that the Answer is A?
https://preview.redd.it/gziphkj6qe1d1.png?width=1282&format=png&auto=webp&s=1a25ba922644c69dd7ba7b72567bbb14a73e18e0

Let’s use vestigial structures as a specific example of the non-falsifiability of evolution. When it became clear, based on advancing medical science, that the roughly 180 anatomical structures that evolutionists had originally claimed were useless actually were useful, they resorted to a fall-back position, which is a classic post-hoc explanatory device. They now claim that these structures supposedly served some OTHER function in the past, but now they have another function. Crapo in 1985, for example, wrote: “This is precisely how a vestige should be defined: Not as a ‘functionless’ part of an organism, but as a part which does not function in the way that its structure would lead us to expected, given how that structure function in most other organisms.” Notice now Crapo’s analysis here also confirms how important attacking the belief in God as a wise, efficient, benevolent Creator is to evolutionists: “It is the existence of such vestiges in such organisms which evolutionary theory would very naturally predict, but which the belief in an efficient Designer would not lead us to expect a priori.” (Italics removed, Richly Crapo, “Are the vanishing teeth of fetal baleen whales useless?” 1985). This kind of fall-back position for “explaining” vestigial structures illustrates the non-falsifiable nature of evolution. When medical science confirms the a priori viewpoint of the creationist model, that all of these anatomical structures really are useful and God didn’t insert useless organs and structures into the human body, the evolutionists don’t admit that their paradigm is falsified. Instead, they simply retreat into other rationalizations to keep attacking God as a shoddy, careless, unwise engineer. Here once again the viewpoint of Cornelius Hunter’s book “Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil” is confirmed: Evolutionists are engaged in negative natural theology when they argue against a supernatural explanation of the natural world based upon its perceived structural flaws and moral evils. Indeed, they find it crucial and very important to supporting their paradigm to do this. Needless to say, this kind of reasoning is every bit as metaphysical as the theologian who argues that the wonders and complexity of the natural world proves God’s existence. Any claim that evolution, when it enters the world of change above the genus or family taxonomic levels, is more “empirical” than creationism, is simply false.
The example of supposedly “vestigial” organs is also a great example of how the theory of evolution slows down scientific development and research. If an anatomical structure is a priori judged to be “vestigial,” then scientists who are evolutionists aren’t likely to study it carefully for what it really does. For example, tonsils were often removed for decades from children since they were judged to be simply “useless vestiges.” Later on, oops!, it was found out that they actually do fight disease. They weren’t so useless after all. Basically all 180 organs and anatomical structures that were once listed as “useless vestiges” (in one way or another) have been found to have real functions. For instance, the “yolk sac” is used by a developing human embryo to make its first blood cells; death would result without it. The coccyx was claimed to be a remnant of our purported evolutionary ancestors having a tail, but it’s actually a crucial point for muscle attachment needed for our upright posture (and, well, for defecation). So to say this is about “prior functions” as opposed to current functions is a great example of how evolutionists attempt to escape falsification of their paradigm. They assume these “prior functions” really existed a priori, when that remains to be proven. There’s no way to test, predict, observe, reproduce the selective advantage of supposed intermediate structures for the survival of the species in question, which supposedly occurred long ago in the prehistorical past. This is yet another example of circular reasoning by evolutionists, in which they assume what still needs to be proven.
A great, focused book from a creationist viewpoint on this general subject of "vestigial" organs is Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., and George Howe, Ph.d., "'Vestigial Organs' Are Fully Functional," Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, 1990.
Super erudite, extra scholarly addendum, for those interested in grinding the details:
In response to one evolutionist critic in the past, I decided to do some research on this subject in order to be able to reproduce evidence for my reference about when evolutionists said that there were around 180 vestigial organs. The key evolutionist book that originated this specific number on this subject is Robert Wiedersheim, "The Structure of man: an index to his past history," which was published in English in 1895 and translated by H. and M. Bernard (Macmillan, London), which is available online through Google books since it has an expired copyright. According to Jerry Bergman and George Howe, "'Vestigial Organs' Are Fully Functional," p. 5, he developed a detailed list of 86 vestigial organs and "about 100 so-called retrogressive organs." Here I've reproduced the list of the 86 vestigial organs. I suppose someone would have to do more research to get the list of 100 "retrogressive organs," which apparently come from the same book.
If a medical doctor is available to survey this list, would he or she say that these organs are useless? Wasn't Wiedersheim simply wrong? Do evolutionists ever admit to error in the arguments that they make for their theory? Or do they simply keep pushing the same nonsense, regardless of how many times it has been proven false?
Here is Wiedersheim's list of the human body's supposedly useless vestigial organs/anatomical structures: Os coccygis. Cauda humana.Superfluous embryonic notochord and associated somites.Embryonic cervical, lumbar, and sacral ribs.The thirteenth rib of the adult.The seventh cervical rib in the adult.The interarticular cartilage of the sterno-clavicular joint (probable vestige of the episternal apparatus).Ossa supra-sternalia.Certain centres of ossification in the manubrium sterni.The branchial clefts (for the most part) and branchial ridges.Processus styloideus ossis temporis, and the ligamentum stylo-hyoideum.Anterior cornua of the hyoid, for the greater part.Foramen caecum of the tongue.Processus gracilis of the malleus.Post-frontal bone (?)Ossa interparietalia (and ? prseinterparietalia).Processus paramastoideus of exoccipital.Torus occipitalis.Processus frontalis of the temporal.Processus coracoideus .Os centrale carpi.Processus supracondyloideus humeri.Trochanter tertius femoris.The phalanges of the fifth toe, and less conspicuously of the third and fourth toes.Muscles of the pinna and the Musculus occipitalis. LM. transversus nuchae. L. --Facial muscles transformed into tendinous expansions.Mm. plantaris and palmaris longus, when completely tendinous.M. ischio femoralis.The caudal muscles.M. epitrochleo-anconseus.M. latissimo-condyloideus.M. transversus thoracis (triangularis sterni).M. palmaris brevis.The transition bundles between the trapezius and the sterno- cleido-mastoideus.M. levator claviculae.M. rectus thoracis.M. ere master.The primitive hairy covering or lanugo.Vestiges of vibrissaeThe vertex coccygeus, the foveola and glabella coccygea.Certain vortices of hair on the breast.Nipples in men.Supernumerary mammary glands in women.Alleged vestiges of mammary pouchesSupernumerary olfactory ridges.Jacobson's organ, and ductus naso-palatinus.Papilla palatina and foliata.Plica semilunaris of the eye.Vasa hyaloidse (Cloquet's canal) of the embryo the choroidal fissure.Lachrymal glands, in part.The epicanthus.M. orbitalis.Certain varieties of the pinna of the ear, i.e. Darwin's tubercle.The filum terminale of the spinal cord.Glandula pinealis and parietal organ.The parieto-occipital fissure of the brain .The obex, ponticulus, ligula, taeniae medullares, and velum medullare anterius and posterius, of the brain.The hypophysis cerebri (pituitary body).The dorsal roots and ganglia of the hypoglossus nerve.The rami recurrentes of certain cranial nerves.Certain elements of the brachial and lumbo-sacral plexuses.The coccygeal nerve.The glandula coccygea.Palatal ridges.The sublingua.The formation of rudimentary dental papillae before the sinking of the dental ridge.The Wisdom teethThe occurrence of a third premolar (reversionary).The occurrence of a fourth molar (reversionary).The vestiges of a third dentition.The ciliated epithelium of the embryonic oesophagus.Bursa sub- and prehyoidea (ductus thyroglossus).Musculi broncho-oesophagei.The appendix vermiformis.Ventricle of the larynx (Morgagni's pouch).Lobus subpericardiacus of the lung (reversionary).Certain Valves of the veins.Certain structures of a vestigial nature in the heart.Arteria sacralis media.Arteria ischiadica.Superficial plantar arterial arch of the foot.The vena cava superior sinistra.Venae cardinales posteriores, and ductus Cuvieri.Vestiges (in the female) of the mesonephric system, and (in the male) of the Müllerian ducts.Conus inguinalis, and ligamentum inguinale.The area scroti.
See also pages 200-209 of Robert Weidman’s book, which he labels “Conspectus of Organs Mentioned in the Text” and “List of Organs According to Systems.”

I have shown many signs of puberty with facial hair, pubic hair, growth spurt and that, however I don't have armpit hair and have not noticed any growth in testicles or penis (looking similar to a stage 2 on the sexual maturity male development tanner stage).
After reading a couple of similar post here, I went to the doctor and got a blood test done. The doctor said that the size of my testicles were normal and the blood test said that my testosterone levels were within range.
So I guess some questions I have are:

1. does puberty still continue after ~18? like do i just wait it out because my testosterone levels are normal
2. should I see another doctor? (i was a little skeptical when the initial doctor said that my testicles were normal sized, because I feel like it really shouldn't be normal)

appreciate you if u read this far :)

I'd like to know from both men and women here which of these two men they think are more desirable for a long-term relationship to a woman of average to below average attractiveness in her early 20s who is not particularly wealthy and likely will never be.
Man #1 - This man who is two years older than the woman and is in the same lower class or poor working-class as she is. He makes about the same amount of money as she does, so he is capable of holding down a job. However, he does not have enough job prospects to attain a higher socioeconomic class. He is of roughly the same physical attractiveness as she is. He is neurotypical, and he has no abnormal personality flaws.
Man #2 - This man is 20 years older than the poor woman. He is highly educated and has a very good job that pays well into six figures. He has good physical fitness, has a full head of hair, and takes care of his skin so that he still looks pretty good despite his age. Just like Man #1, he is neurotypical and has no abnormal personality flaws. He also has no desire to "manipulate" the younger woman (at least from his own mental perspective). He is genuinely attracted to the younger woman because she is young and attractive, as the OkCupid studies suggests of older men, and he also likes and respects her because she has a pleasant personality (he's not a misogynist).
The intent of asking this question is to attempt to isolate how much age alone affects relationship desirability for younger women. Most of the complaints from women on this sub about older men seem to center around either the poor physical qualities of older men, or the fact that there is something "wrong" with the personalities of older men who try to date younger women. The assumption here is that Man #2 is just a normal man who is attracted to younger women and that's why he prefers to have relationships with them.
I also think that a lot of women here are attractive UMC women who have no real need to even consider a wealthy older man, since they can easily attract attractive UMC men with good financial prospects. That's why I want to know what a less attractive, less wealthy woman should do.
I am interested in seeing the differences in the replies between men and women, and between Red Pillers and Blue Pillers.
Other factors that are interesting to consider:
Do you think that it makes a difference in who the woman should choose if the woman is middle class and Man #1 is middle class compared to a scenario where the woman is poorer?
Do you think that it makes a difference if the woman is a single mother and struggling to take care of a child?
I've tried to cover all of the factors here, but I may edit this original post if I'm leaving something essential out. Thanks for your replies.
And yes, Red Pillers, I realize that the best scenario for the woman is to do a dual mating strategy. Let's assume that Man #2 is savvy and will paternity test any children, so that the possibility of her trying to deceive him is not possible. Let's also assume that the woman is of good moral character and won't want to try anything like that (even if it is advantageous for her to do so).

FSH 7.11 LH LH 2.71
Hi y’all! I’ve been trying to sort out some health issues for years and think I might have pcos? I went to a new gyn who showed concern about the above labs. She ordered an ultrasound and imaging along with bloodwork to test for insulin resistance. The thing is, my only real symptoms are an irregular period and low sex drive. Sometimes my nipples hurt like crazy but that’s it. I’m 5’4” and 154 lbs. never really struggled too much with my weight but I do count calories to stay at my current weight along with exercise.
Sorry for what might be a dumb question, but did anyone else have these levels and end up having pcos? Worried about what’s causing this and not sure where to ask while I wait for my next appointment.

Let’s use vestigial structures as a specific example of the non-falsifiability of evolution. When it became clear, based on advancing medical science, that the roughly 180 anatomical structures that evolutionists had originally claimed were useless actually were useful, they resorted to a fall-back position, which is a classic post-hoc explanatory device. They now claim that these structures supposedly served some OTHER function in the past, but now they have another function. Crapo in 1985, for example, wrote: “This is precisely how a vestige should be defined: Not as a ‘functionless’ part of an organism, but as a part which does not function in the way that its structure would lead us to expected, given how that structure function in most other organisms.” Notice now Crapo’s analysis here also confirms how important attacking the belief in God as a wise, efficient, benevolent Creator is to evolutionists: “It is the existence of such vestiges in such organisms which evolutionary theory would very naturally predict, but which the belief in an efficient Designer would not lead us to expect a priori.” (Italics removed, Richly Crapo, “Are the vanishing teeth of fetal baleen whales useless?” 1985). This kind of fall-back position for “explaining” vestigial structures illustrates the non-falsifiable nature of evolution. When medical science confirms the a priori viewpoint of the creationist model, that all of these anatomical structures really are useful and God didn’t insert useless organs and structures into the human body, the evolutionists don’t admit that their paradigm is falsified. Instead, they simply retreat into other rationalizations to keep attacking God as a shoddy, careless, unwise engineer. Here once again the viewpoint of Cornelius Hunter’s book “Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil” is confirmed: Evolutionists are engaged in negative natural theology when they argue against a supernatural explanation of the natural world based upon its perceived structural flaws and moral evils. Indeed, they find it crucial and very important to supporting their paradigm to do this. Needless to say, this kind of reasoning is every bit as metaphysical as the theologian who argues that the wonders and complexity of the natural world proves God’s existence. Any claim that evolution, when it enters the world of change above the genus or family taxonomic levels, is more “empirical” than creationism, is simply false.
The example of supposedly “vestigial” organs is also a great example of how the theory of evolution slows down scientific development and research. If an anatomical structure is a priori judged to be “vestigial,” then scientists who are evolutionists aren’t likely to study it carefully for what it really does. For example, tonsils were often removed for decades from children since they were judged to be simply “useless vestiges.” Later on, oops!, it was found out that they actually do fight disease. They weren’t so useless after all. Basically all 180 organs and anatomical structures that were once listed as “useless vestiges” (in one way or another) have been found to have real functions. For instance, the “yolk sac” is used by a developing human embryo to make its first blood cells; death would result without it. The coccyx was claimed to be a remnant of our purported evolutionary ancestors having a tail, but it’s actually a crucial point for muscle attachment needed for our upright posture (and, well, for defecation). So to say this is about “prior functions” as opposed to current functions is a great example of how evolutionists attempt to escape falsification of their paradigm. They assume these “prior functions” really existed a priori, when that remains to be proven. There’s no way to test, predict, observe, reproduce the selective advantage of supposed intermediate structures for the survival of the species in question, which supposedly occurred long ago in the prehistorical past. This is yet another example of circular reasoning by evolutionists, in which they assume what still needs to be proven.
A great, focused book from a creationist viewpoint on this general subject of "vestigial" organs is Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., and George Howe, Ph.d., "'Vestigial Organs' Are Fully Functional," Creation Research Society, St. Joseph, MO, 1990.
Super erudite, extra scholarly addendum, for those interested in grinding the details:
In response to one evolutionist critic in the past, I decided to do some research on this subject in order to be able to reproduce evidence for my reference about when evolutionists said that there were around 180 vestigial organs. The key evolutionist book that originated this specific number on this subject is Robert Wiedersheim, "The Structure of man: an index to his past history," which was published in English in 1895 and translated by H. and M. Bernard (Macmillan, London), which is available online through Google books since it has an expired copyright. According to Jerry Bergman and George Howe, "'Vestigial Organs' Are Fully Functional," p. 5, he developed a detailed list of 86 vestigial organs and "about 100 so-called retrogressive organs." Here's the list of the 86 vestigial organs. I suppose someone would have to do more research to get the list of 100 "retrogressive organs," which apparently come from the same book.If a medical doctor is available to survey this list, would he or she say that these organs are useless? Wasn't Wiedersheim simply wrong? Do evolutionists ever admit to error in the arguments that they make for their theory? Or do they simply keep pushing the same nonsense, regardless of how many times it has been proven false?
Here is Wiedersheim's list of the human body's supposedly useless vestigial organs/anatomical structures: Os coccygis. Cauda humana.Superfluous embryonic notochord and associated somites.Embryonic cervical, lumbar, and sacral ribs.The thirteenth rib of the adult.The seventh cervical rib in the adult.The interarticular cartilage of the sterno-clavicular joint (probable vestige of the episternal apparatus).Ossa supra-sternalia.Certain centres of ossification in the manubrium sterni.The branchial clefts (for the most part) and branchial ridges.Processus styloideus ossis temporis, and the ligamentum stylo-hyoideum.Anterior cornua of the hyoid, for the greater part.Foramen caecum of the tongue.Processus gracilis of the malleus.Post-frontal bone (?)Ossa interparietalia (and ? prseinterparietalia).Processus paramastoideus of exoccipital.Torus occipitalis.Processus frontalis of the temporal.Processus coracoideus .Os centrale carpi.Processus supracondyloideus humeri.Trochanter tertius femoris.The phalanges of the fifth toe, and less conspicuously of the third and fourth toes.Muscles of the pinna and the Musculus occipitalis. LM. transversus nuchae. L. --Facial muscles transformed into tendinous expansions.Mm. plantaris and palmaris longus, when completely tendinous.M. ischio femoralis.The caudal muscles.M. epitrochleo-anconseus.M. latissimo-condyloideus.M. transversus thoracis (triangularis sterni).M. palmaris brevis.The transition bundles between the trapezius and the sterno- cleido-mastoideus.M. levator claviculae.M. rectus thoracis.M. ere master.The primitive hairy covering or lanugo.Vestiges of vibrissaeThe vertex coccygeus, the foveola and glabella coccygea.Certain vortices of hair on the breast.Nipples in men.Supernumerary mammary glands in women.Alleged vestiges of mammary pouchesSupernumerary olfactory ridges.Jacobson's organ, and ductus naso-palatinus.Papilla palatina and foliata.Plica semilunaris of the eye.Vasa hyaloidse (Cloquet's canal) of the embryo the choroidal fissure.Lachrymal glands, in part.The epicanthus.M. orbitalis.Certain varieties of the pinna of the ear, i.e. Darwin's tubercle.The filum terminale of the spinal cord.Glandula pinealis and parietal organ.The parieto-occipital fissure of the brain .The obex, ponticulus, ligula, taeniae medullares, and velum medullare anterius and posterius, of the brain.The hypophysis cerebri (pituitary body).The dorsal roots and ganglia of the hypoglossus nerve.The rami recurrentes of certain cranial nerves.Certain elements of the brachial and lumbo-sacral plexuses.The coccygeal nerve.The glandula coccygea.Palatal ridges.The sublingua.The formation of rudimentary dental papillae before the sinking of the dental ridge.The Wisdom teethThe occurrence of a third premolar (reversionary).The occurrence of a fourth molar (reversionary).The vestiges of a third dentition.The ciliated epithelium of the embryonic oesophagus.Bursa sub- and prehyoidea (ductus thyroglossus).Musculi broncho-oesophagei.The appendix vermiformis.Ventricle of the larynx (Morgagni's pouch).Lobus subpericardiacus of the lung (reversionary).Certain Valves of the veins.Certain structures of a vestigial nature in the heart.Arteria sacralis media.Arteria ischiadica.Superficial plantar arterial arch of the foot.The vena cava superior sinistra.Venae cardinales posteriores, and ductus Cuvieri.Vestiges (in the female) of the mesonephric system, and (in the male) of the Müllerian ducts.Conus inguinalis, and ligamentum inguinale.The area scroti.
See also pages 200-209 of Robert Weidman’s book, which he labels “Conspectus of Organs Mentioned in the Text” and “List of Organs According to Systems.”

I recently graduated college as a Civil Engineer. I've accepted a job offer as a Geotechnical Engineer. The job requires me too drive to different construction sites within the Philadelphia/NJ area from King Of Prussia doing inspections and testing.
I would also need a car capable enough to drive around on this construction sites. I will also be transporting testing equipment and samples and need good cargo space.
I'm looking for a car with good mileage because of the extra travel, we recently got a electric car charger installed at the house and was thinking about getting a PHEV.
The job pays higher range in the 60 thousands and I have about 28k in debt, I'm striving to pay that off in a year and half. I'm living at home with the parents until I do and don't have any other payments.
What car would be feasible for me capabilities and budget wise.
Edit: Additional information, I will be reimbursed 0.68 a mile and might drive around 500 miles a week I'm not totally sure

The global agriculture sensors market is projected to experience a substantial Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of over 13% from 2024 to 2030. This growth is primarily driven by the increasing adoption of modern farming practices worldwide and advancements in technology. Additionally, the rising demand for food, coupled with population growth and the need to enhance crop production, is expected to further stimulate market expansion. Moreover, the growing adoption of smart farming techniques, drone technology, and telematics solutions, along with the increasing utilization of sensors in various applications such as disease control and detection, yield monitoring and mapping, irrigation and water management, and soil monitoring, is anticipated to fuel market growth.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=147330
Market Trends:
Increasing Adoption of Precision Farming: Precision farming is gaining traction as farmers seek to optimize field-level management concerning crop farming. The use of sensors allows for accurate data collection on soil conditions, weather patterns, and crop health, enabling farmers to make informed decisions and improve yield efficiency.
Advancements in Sensor Technology: Technological advancements are leading to the development of more sophisticated and reliable sensors. Innovations such as wireless sensors, IoT-enabled devices, and advanced imaging technologies are enhancing the accuracy and functionality of agricultural sensors, making them more accessible and user-friendly.
Integration of IoT and Big Data Analytics: The integration of Internet of Things (IoT) and big data analytics in agriculture is revolutionizing farm management. Sensors collect vast amounts of data that, when analyzed, provide insights into crop health, soil moisture, and other critical factors. This integration helps farmers optimize resources, reduce costs, and increase productivity.
Growth of Smart Farming Practices: Smart farming practices, including the use of drones, robots, and automated systems, are becoming increasingly prevalent. Sensors play a crucial role in these technologies, providing real-time data for tasks such as crop monitoring, pest control, and precise irrigation, thereby improving overall farm management.
Rising Demand for Sustainable Agriculture: There is a growing emphasis on sustainable agriculture practices aimed at reducing environmental impact and conserving resources. Sensors help in implementing precision agriculture techniques that minimize water usage, reduce chemical inputs, and lower carbon footprints, aligning with the global push for sustainability.
Market Opportunities:
The agriculture sensors market offers extensive opportunities driven by the increasing adoption of precision farming and smart agriculture practices. Technological advancements in IoT, big data analytics, and wireless sensor networks are enabling more efficient and precise farm management, leading to higher crop yields and resource optimization. As global food demand rises alongside population growth, the need for innovative solutions to enhance agricultural productivity becomes critical. Additionally, the push for sustainable farming practices and environmental conservation presents significant market potential for sensors that support efficient water management, soil health monitoring, and reduced chemical usage. Government support through subsidies and favorable policies further bolsters the adoption of advanced agricultural technologies, creating a fertile ground for market expansion and innovation.
According to the recent report published by RC Market Analytics, the Global Agriculture Sensors Market is expected to provide sustainable growth opportunities during the forecast period from 2024 to 2030. This latest industry research study analyzes the agriculture sensors market by various product segments, applications, regions and countries while assessing regional performances of numerous leading market participants. The report offers a holistic view of the agriculture sensors industry encompassing numerous stakeholders including raw material suppliers, providers, distributors, consumers and government agencies, among others. Furthermore, the report includes detailed quantitative and qualitative analysis of the global market considering market history, product development, regional dynamics, competitive landscape, and key success factors (KSFs) in the industry.
Browse the Full Report Discretion @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/agriculture-sensors-market/
Geographically, the agriculture sensors market report comprises dedicated sections centering on the regional market revenue and trends. The agriculture sensors market has been segmented on the basis of geographic regions into North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. Agriculture sensors market estimates have also been provided for the historical years 2020 to 2023 along with forecast for the period from 2024 - 2030.The report includes a deep-dive analysis of key countries including the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Germany, France, Italy, China, Japan, India, Australia, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa, among others. Thereby, the report identifies unique growth opportunities across the world based on trends occurring in various developed and developing economies.
The Agriculture Sensors Market Segmentation:
By Type:

• Location Sensor
• Humidity Sensor
• Electrochemical Sensor
• Mechanical Sensor
• Airflow Sensor
• Optical Sensor
• Pressure Sensor
• Water Sensor
• Soil Sensor
• Livestock Sensor

By Application:

• Dairy Management
• Soil Management
• Climate Management
• Water Management
• Precision Farming
• Smart Green House

By Region:

• North America
• Europe
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East & Africa

Key players in the global agriculture sensors market include Auroras Srl Cso Piera Cillario, Caipos GmbH, CropX Inc., CropIn Technology Solutions Private Limited, and Glana Sensors AB. These companies are focusing on market expansion, new investments, innovative service offerings, and strategic collaborations. By entering new geographical regions and acquiring other businesses, they aim to leverage joint synergies and gain a competitive advantage.
To know more about this study, request a free sample report @ https://www.researchcorridor.com/request-sample/?id=147330
Key Questions Answered by Agriculture Sensors Market Report:

• Product popularity and adoption based on various country-level dynamics
• Regional presence and product development for leading market participants
• Market forecasts and trend analysis based on ongoing investments and economic growth in key countries
• Competitive landscape based on revenue, product offerings, years of presence, number of employees and market concentration, among others
• Various industry models such as SWOT analysis, Pestle Analysis, Porter’s Five Force model, Value Chain Analysis pertaining to Agriculture Sensors market
• Analysis of the key factors driving and restraining the growth of the global, regional and country-level markets from 2020-2030

About Us:RC Market Analytics is a global market research firm. Our insightful analysis is focused on developed and emerging markets. We identify trends and forecast markets with a view to aid businesses identify market opportunities to optimize strategies. Our expert’s team of analysts’ provides enterprises with strategic insights. RC Market Analytics works to help enterprises grow through strategic insights and actionable solutions. Feel free to contact us for any report customization at sales@researchcorridor.com.
Media Contact:
Company Name: RC Market Analytics Pvt. Ltd. Contact Person: Vijendra Singh Email: sales@researchcorridor.com Visit us: https://www.researchcorridor.com/

Enhancing Email Interactivity: Navigating Gmail's CSS Restrictions

Designing email templates that maintain their intended functionality and aesthetics across various email clients is a nuanced art, particularly with Gmail's known limitations regarding certain CSS properties. Among these, the -webkit-user-select property plays a crucial role in user experience, enabling or disabling text selection within the email. Gmail's decision to strip this property can disrupt the intended interactive experience of an email, forcing designers and developers to seek creative workarounds. This challenge underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of email client behavior to ensure that emails not only reach their audience but also deliver the intended experience.
The quest for a solution highlights the broader challenges of email marketing in the digital age, where uniformity across platforms remains elusive. Designers must navigate these limitations, employing innovative strategies to circumvent restrictions without compromising on design or functionality. This introduces an interesting dynamic to email template creation, pushing the boundaries of what's possible within the constraints of email client standards. The ability to adapt and innovate within these confines is crucial for maintaining engagement and ensuring that your message is both seen and interacted with as intended.

Command/Software	Description
CSS Inliner Tool	A tool to inline CSS styles for better email client compatibility.
HTML Conditional Comments	Conditional statements that target specific email clients for customized styling.

Crafting Resilient Email Templates Amidst Gmail Constraints

Email marketing remains a critical channel for engaging customers, with the design and functionality of email templates playing a pivotal role in the success of these campaigns. However, email designers and marketers often face challenges when their carefully crafted emails are rendered in Gmail. Gmail, being one of the most popular email clients, has its own set of rules for handling HTML and CSS, which can lead to the stripping of certain CSS properties, such as -webkit-user-select. This property is particularly useful for controlling user interaction with text content, such as disabling text selection or copy-pasting. The absence of this control can lead to unintended user experiences, potentially diminishing the effectiveness of the email content.
To navigate Gmail's limitations, it is essential for developers to understand the nuances of email client compatibility and employ creative solutions. One effective strategy is the use of inline CSS, as Gmail tends to respect styles applied directly within HTML tags over those in blocks or external stylesheets. Additionally, leveraging HTML conditional comments allows for targeting specific email clients with custom styles, offering a workaround to apply desired effects selectively. These practices, coupled with testing across various email clients, ensure that email templates remain robust and deliver the intended experience to every recipient, regardless of the email client they use. Such adaptability not only enhances the user experience but also safeguards the brand's message and design integrity in the face of diverse email client behaviors.

Embedding CSS Styles Directly for Gmail Compatibility

HTML & Inline CSS

 [if !mso]>>   Content visible for all but Outlook. 

     
 This text will be highlighted in red.