My theory:

The narrative has shifted so USA can save face and leave the war and have a legitimate reason as to why the Taliban is in power.

The narrative goes like this:

Afghan's didn't want to fight the Taliban. They wanted the Taliban. Afghanistan is a tribal country and a central government would not work. We failed in our attempt to establish a democracy.

The parties in the negotiations were USA, Taliban, and Afghan government.

USA:

• Their goal was to leave the country but not look like the losers or fools.

Taliban:

• Their goal was to rule the country and establish a legitimate Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (a new country).

Afghan government:

• Corrupt individuals wanting money and to live a good life tired of ruling the country with Talibans constantly attacking them and being a threat.

All three wants little bloodshed because that would look bad on the global stage.

So what could they do so all three can have what they want?

Taliban or whoever pays the Afghan government and leaders so they can flee and live in exile and in the shadows for the rest of their lives with lots of money. USA withdraws. Afghan leaders let the commandos survive by proposing an offer to live by giving up arms. There is no bloodshed. Army is dissolved and Taliban walks into the capital without any violence so it looks like the Afghan people wanted them to rule over Afghanistan all along. Now Biden and propaganda on certain media spreads that says Afghans were cowards or wanted to have the Taliban rule the country. Hopefully USA saved face and they got out of the country. Now since there was no "resistance" against Talibans, the Talibans have press conferences, and act as though they are a legitimate ruler that the people wanted and that they are peaceful. They already changed the flag and got a freakin' Wikipedia page. And they spread propaganda like fire. Afghan government officials (the corrupt ones) also got what they wanted. Money and a good life in exile. Sure, people will talk bad about Ghani for now. But soon he will be forgotten.

Hello guys, I really did not know where to post this, so I'm trying here - hopefully I can get either an answer to my question or advice as to where I can ask this question.

Okay, so I have a project on a brand/café that is a lot like Starbucks (fast delivery, good product, expensive, generally considered "luxury"). However, the vast majority of their customers are teenagers (and specifically girls), so when we asked customers between the age of 20-25, they stated that they felt somewhat "embarrassed" or "shame" when sitting/buying there, while others stated they felt great because it's an expensive, but good, product.

I'd like to apply the Face-Negotiation Theory to describe this sort of thing. If anyone can help me, it would be greatly, greatly appreciated. :)

Best regards

One small thing I hope comes with Toolbox Theory is that the South East Asia conflicts influence the outcome of the 1968 negotiations. Right now Hawaii especially is rng-heavy with little weights either way to influence the outcome.

Repeated failures by US aligned forces should encourage a Dente between the OFN and Japan favorable to Japan. Japan's confidence would be bolstered, albeit the costs of fighting should weigh down upon the Japanese.

Meanwhile, if the US is successful in driving out the Japanese from the Southern Resource Area they fought so hard for, this should make the pre-Hawaii negotiations more likely to succeed in getting US treaty ports back to the US, as the Americans have proven that Japan can't actually hold onto their defensive perimeter.

Hawaii should be more complicated. If Japan lost basically everything in their sphere outside of China/Manchuria (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and possibly Vietnam...which in domino theory would mean Free India-Indochina is in danger), I feel like there would be 2 competing currents in Tokyo. One is doubling down and seeking to preserve the gains of the greatest generation - meaning hold onto Hawaii no matter what the cost. The other is to make peace with the US and ditch the difficult to defend Hawaii across the ocean. I guess different leaders should have different weights for the outcome - arguably the more dovish R-Ds should be more likely to succeed than the hawkish NPP

Hey, had a question on Marx and this subreddit was recommended.

I'm currently working my way through Marx's Capital, and if I'm understanding things right, Marx's theory holds that money is a measure of value. But it is only able to achieve this function because it is itself a commodity, namely gold.

Gold has value because it is a product of labor, and has some socially necessary labor time required in producing it. When gold is introduced to the market by miners, it is bartered away, and from there on works as money, the universal equivalent that everything else compares its own value against, and the form that value takes after other commodities are sold.

But with the rise of fiat currency and the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it seems hard to argue that the value of money is tied to its socially necessary labor time. There is no greater socially necessary labor time in producing a $1 bill than a $100 bill. And with modern computers, we don't even need to consider the cost of printing the money. It just exists within computer systems.

It seems then like Marxism requires updating in a world of fiat currency. Capitalism has developed in new ways, and new lines of analysis are necessary.

I've poked around a bit, but haven't found anything really substantial or satisfying yet. David Harvey for example writes this in his Companion to Marx's Capital:

>So what relationship exists today between the various paper moneys (e.g., dollars, euros, pesos, yen) and the value of commodities? Though gold still plays an interesting role, it no longer functions as the basis for representing value. The relationship of moneys to socially necessary labor-time, which was problematic even in the case of gold, has become even more remote and elusive. But to say it is hidden, remote and elusive is not to say it does not exist. Turmoil in international currency markets has something to do with differences in material productivity in different national economies. The problematic relationship between the existing money-forms and commodity-values that Marx outlines is still with us and very much open to the line of analysis that he pioneered, even though its contemporary form of appearance is quite different.

I think there is the beginning of an explanation here, but not a substantial one quite yet. While I agree there is some connection between the strength of a currency and the strength of national productivity, simply pointing that out hardly seems to explain

Also, this was hilarious:

“If you crunch on it you’re gonna get a second surprise”

“What’s the surprise?”

“More salt”

Hey folks, I’m probably the last person who should be doing this post, but it turns out anyone can google things, and write a poorly researched reddit post, so here goes.

In the first two episodes of season, this show has dropped at least 6 new names from the greater Superman mythos. What could this possibly have to do with the Monster in the mines? In a post no one asked for, I breakdown the name checks and try to figure out what it means.

Note: I have taken to using the term S&L-verse or Superman & Lois-verse throughout this post. While S&L is kind of sort of part of the Arrowverse, it is clear from both what we have seen on screen and a recent podcast interview with Helbing that S&L has been given carte blanche (to an extent) to tell stories that are not necessarily consistent with the continuity of the rest of the Arrowverse.

Mitch Anderson (1) and his Supermen of America (2)

Mitch Anderson

Also Known As (in the comics) : Outburst

First Comic Book appearance: 1992 (Death/ Reign/ Return arc)

Superpowers (in the comics): Magnetic Powers

Supermen of America

First introduced: 1999

Theories and Analysis: Mitch Anderson is someone to be watched. He comes with a comic book name, but like many thing is the Superman & Lois- Verse, he is already different than previous iterations of his character. As far as I can tell, Mitch Anderson has never been affiliated with the DoD in the past. In so many ways, he is both a composite character, incorporating all of the things military contacts Superman and the other heroes have had over the years and someone who has been reinvented to fit the needs to the show which is completely on brand for the show. Mitch Anderson, as a comics character, brings two things to the table that we saw in a limited way last season. He has both a secret identity, Outburst, and he canonically has powers. Take note of this, because this is a theme, I’ll summarize at the bottom.

To go along with this is the Supermen of America, Mitch is the leader of the Supermen of America in both the comics and the S&L- Verse. The Supermen of America are particularly interesting because we still have so many questions about their origins. Tag is only character who we know exactly where his powers came from. He got his when Jordan let out a blast of heat vision at the mine

I've been seeing pics of her pre surgery and even though we dont all agree she was pretty, she looked sort of sweet. I've never seen/heard of her pre-griftmas I'm completely unbiased when I say her face is a true reflection of her character and her old one is...not. No one would have cared if she still had her old face. We'd have brushed it off as some silly basic white girl wanting to be more exotic before reading more of the details. Alec has a (probably made up by his family) fake irish ancestry too, who cares. The new instagram template face with the stupid raised eyebrows is what made me want to know more. It sort of screams 'I'm a Fake' and gets you interested in just how fake and made up her backstory is. It makes me angry for reason lol. There's this weird smugness I can't stand. It's intriguing in a way her old face is not. She's really not important enough for so many people to know about her.

please help me figure out what to do! wait?? email?? call?? cry??

17low, 3.7mid and dead-set on PI. not sure where I want to be, but have family in NY. Berk and NYU are my current top. here are my offers (measured by tuition not COA, b/c it makes me feel better):

USC $$$
Fordham $$+
BU $$
Michigan $$ (Dean's so can't negotiate higher)
Vanderbilt < $$
Berkeley ???
NYU ???
Northwestern ???

Photos of all the items here.

# Bottega Veneta Mini Loop Bag in Black from Jing Factory SOLD

~~* Source: Anna

• Original price: $220 shipped
• Selling price: $210 shipped
• Shipping: via USPS full packaging
• Condition: New; never used!
• Quality: Leather is very soft and great quality. I wanted to like the intrecciato leather design and get something from New Bottega but it is not for me so selling it.
• Auth~~

Grey Market Vince Marli Sandals in Lychee Size 7/37

• Source: Taobao
• Original price: $70 shipped
• Selling price: $65 shipped
• Shipping: via USPS; full packaging
• Condition: New; never used! Please note in the pictures that there is a defect (small nicks).
• Quality: I believe this is grey market and comes with a dust bag (and a beat up branded box). Great leather quality.
• Auth

Stuart Weitzman NearlyNude Heels in Black or Nude Suede Size 38

• Source: Fisherman
• Original price: $230 shipped for both
• Selling price: $115 shipped each or both for $220 shipped
• Shipping: via USPS; comes with dust bag
• Condition: New; never used! Is slightly loose on my 7/7.5 feet so rehoming them.
• Quality: Great quality, the suede is luxurious and color looks accurate to authentic.
• [Auth](https://www.stuar

This post is just a theory, it is not refer from any leaks and simply derived from visual clues from the drip marketing from genshin Impact Twitter. Now that's out of the way, let's move on to the part of this theory.

What is face-changing or Bian Lian (变脸), it is a performance art that is play on Sichuan Opera where the performer wear bright coloured clothing and move in fast pace to the music, performing their signature move of switching "faces" or mask. The image below show a Bian Lian actor. Here is a video of face-changing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLNn_tT7Jy8).

https://preview.redd.it/lhpwk9uyy8181.png?width=275&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c07cba039f9d44abd3fc6a0a3be73f1fc559ec4

Now, with the information given to us by Genshin twitter, Yun Jin work as the director of Yun-Han Opera Troupe. Moreover, Yun Jin headgear closely resemble that of a sichuan opera actor headgear in the image above.

Yun Jin, Geo Vision

Furthermore, her pose, imitate that of the real-life sichuan performer poses as shown below as well. These poses are usually done with emphasis on the movement of the hands, and the stance are made to be rigid yet give off a elegant vibe to it (I dont know how to describe this correctly). Here's a video on some sichuan opera performances. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xajGerJ6VsI

Now let's get to the meat and potato of this theory, how is Yun Jin do "face-changing" and why is it relevant to the gameplay? Up until now, we have units that uses EM for reaction-based attack, but most of them are from the pyro, cryo, hydro, anemo and dare i say, electro element. EM on geo are usually not recommended as EM only improved crystallize reaction in which producing higher hp crystallize shielding. Furthermore, crystallize are usually not essential as we have units like Zhongli or Noelle that specialize in provide big bulky shield. So, why is Yun Jin, a Geo vision holder is carrying a dragon's bane, an EM sub-stat weapon. My theory suggest that Yun Jin may potentially be a EM-based elemental boosting characters such as Sucrose or Kuzaha, and usually to boost certain elemental character, elemental absorption is what came in mind. Yun Jin can potentially change her elements via elemental absorption and

think at this point we all suspect there has to be a reason we haven't seen the riddler's face yet. The common theory is that he has some type of deformity/scarring and I agree with this idea.

Now, who do we know in Gotham with a deformity/scarring? Oswald Cobblepot. Oswald's scarring has a depressed/tight appearance instead of a raised appearance like most scars. The 2 main types of scars with depressed appearances are atrophic scars and contracture scars.

Atrophic scars give off a depressed appearance and are caused by chickenpox/acne. However, Contracture scars give off a depressed appearance as well, but also a tightened appearance, which are both details Oswald's scarring features. Unlike atrophic scars though, contracture scars develop after a severe burn.

Now, while I personally have a little trouble seeing it, I've seen some say Oswald's scarring seems to resemble a penguins beak, hence why he's gotten the nickname. We know thanks to trailer 2/3 and the BTS video that batman will track down and interrogate Oswald specifically, which leads me to believe he will have some info Batman wants on Edward/riddler.

My theory is that Edward and Oswald both grew up in the same orphanage and they were tortured by their caregivers, particularly with a hot knife/blade. Riddler will have a personal scar himself that resembles a question mark but it won't be too tacky or in your face just like Oswald's isn't.

View Poll

I'm currently working my way through Marx's Capital, and if I'm understanding things right, Marx's theory holds that money is a measure of value. But it is only able to achieve this function because it is itself a commodity, namely gold.

Gold has value because it is a product of labor, and has some socially necessary labor time required in producing it. When gold is introduced to the market by miners, it is bartered away, and from there on works as money, the universal equivalent that everything else compares its own value against, and the form that value takes after other commodities are sold.

But with the rise of fiat currency and the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it seems hard to argue that the value of money is tied to its socially necessary labor time. There is no greater socially necessary labor time in producing a $1 bill than a $100 bill. And with modern computers, we don't even need to consider the cost of printing the money. It just exists within computer systems.

It seems then like Marxism requires updating in a world of fiat currency. Capitalism has developed in new ways, and new lines of analysis are necessary.

I've poked around a bit, but haven't found anything really substantial or satisfying yet. David Harvey for example writes this in his Companion to Marx's Capital:

>So what relationship exists today between the various paper moneys (e.g., dollars, euros, pesos, yen) and the value of commodities? Though gold still plays an interesting role, it no longer functions as the basis for representing value. The relationship of moneys to socially necessary labor-time, which was problematic even in the case of gold, has become even more remote and elusive. But to say it is hidden, remote and elusive is not to say it does not exist. Turmoil in international currency markets has something to do with differences in material productivity in different national economies. The problematic relationship between the existing money-forms and commodity-values that Marx outlines is still with us and very much open to the line of analysis that he pioneered, even though its contemporary form of appearance is quite different.

I think there is the beginning of an explanation here, but not a substantial one quite yet. While I agree there is some connection between the strength of a currency and the strength of national productivity, simply pointing that out hardly seems to explain how fiat currency can operate as a measure of value.

It's been s

I'm currently working my way through Marx's Capital, and if I'm understanding things right, Marx's theory holds that money is a measure of value. But it is only able to achieve this function because it is itself a commodity, namely gold.

Gold has value because it is a product of labor, and has some socially necessary labor time required in producing it. When gold is introduced to the market by miners, it is bartered away, and from there on works as money, the universal equivalent that everything else compares its own value against, and the form that value takes after other commodities are sold.

But with the rise of fiat currency and the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it seems hard to argue that the value of money is tied to its socially necessary labor time. There is no greater socially necessary labor time in producing a $1 bill than a $100 bill. And with modern computers, we don't even need to consider the cost of printing the money. It just exists within computer systems.

It seems then like Marxism requires updating in a world of fiat currency. Capitalism has developed in new ways, and new lines of analysis are necessary.

I've poked around a bit, but haven't found anything really substantial or satisfying yet. David Harvey for example writes this in his Companion to Marx's Capital:

>So what relationship exists today between the various paper moneys (e.g., dollars, euros, pesos, yen) and the value of commodities? Though gold still plays an interesting role, it no longer functions as the basis for representing value. The relationship of moneys to socially necessary labor-time, which was problematic even in the case of gold, has become even more remote and elusive. But to say it is hidden, remote and elusive is not to say it does not exist. Turmoil in international currency markets has something to do with differences in material productivity in different national economies. The problematic relationship between the existing money-forms and commodity-values that Marx outlines is still with us and very much open to the line of analysis that he pioneered, even though its contemporary form of appearance is quite different.

I think there is the beginning of an explanation here, but not a substantial one quite yet. While I agree there is some connection between the strength of a currency and the strength of national productivity, simply pointing that out hardly seems to explain how fiat currency can operate as a measure of value.

It's been s