Implied Trust Puns

https://grayscale.com/products/grayscale-bitcoin-cash-trust/

https://grayscale.com/products/grayscale-bitcoin-trust/

Edit: That would place BCH in the #4 spot by market cap.

England. I am currently working full time in a role along side two colleges in the same role. Both are compensated better than I am. Despite my request to balance the pay over the last 3 years, the company has taken no action.

One colleague is leaving, and they have posted the role at between x & x depending on experience. One of these amounts is higher than my salary. Which I find insulting at the least.

If they fail to act on my request for equal compensation for the role, do I have any recourse?

I believe implied trust and confidence would apply but the law is vague to a layman such as myself.

Thank you for any advice.

It's embarrassing and I hate it but I'm finding it's sometimes hard for me to have a platonic relationship once I feel safe and accepted by someone. A friend and I who both have CPTSD are trying to keep things platonic and he said that he thinks he has similar problems because that level of feeling safe and loved has always been a sexual thing for him. And so he conflates the two but it's an uncomfortable problem to have and he's just trying to form close, platonic relationships and learn how to experience those feelings by themselves. (He encouraged me to post about this here btw)

That struck me because I had never thought of it like that, but maybe I'm the same way? He's one of the few people I've ever been able to receive hugs or physical affection from (Nothing too personal. Like a hand on your shoulder or a back pat) and not felt uncomfortable in the least. I know I felt starved of this from my parents or like it always had strings attached , so maybe I've accidentally understood feeling safe and physical affection to be romantic specifically as opposed to other people who got platonic, comforting affection from a mom or a dad or both? Is this common, does anyone else get this too?

My dealer called me today to let me know my can is ready to be picked up (went pending July 19). I asked if I needed to bring a copy of my trust, which he said I do not need. Then he said something that didn't seem correct. He said that when I fill out Form WXYZ (can't remember what he said) that he wouldn't even need to 'call it in'. I've always had to have the background check approval when purchasing firearms in the past (not as part of the trust). I assume he I saying there isn't a background check required. Is this in fact the case since it is an NFA item and I already went through the NFA check? Any words of wisdom would be greatly appreciated, I don't want to unwittingly not comply with any laws.

Hi,

5 years ago I purchased a property which at the time I need my mother to go on the mortgage as my income multiples weren’t enough. So currently my mother and me are on the mortgage deeds and property deeds. My mother is also on the mortgage and property deeds of her main house which she owns with my father.

Me and my wife now want to sell the house and want have mortgage with myself and my wife, we no longer want my mother on the mortgage. We will use all the proceeds of the sale to contribute to the purchase of the new house.

We are concerned that my mother will be subject to a large capital gains tax bill as the property has increase in value by £140,000 in 5 years.

We have been told that we might fall within the Implied Trust, and possibly be exempt from CGT as this has been my primary house for 5 years and I have paid the mortgage myself and I haven’t given my mother any money for the privilege. During the time I have owned the house my mother has not had a beneficial interest in the property.

Can anyone shed any light on this? It’s a real gamble as the HMRC aren’t giving us definitive answers so it’s a case of hoping and praying!

Many Thanks

Small problem though with Prime + Trust. I asked Steam Support if Prime stacked ontop of Trust Factor. For some reason, they would not give a direct answer, although their implication was that they are NOT stacked and are in fact two different matchmaking pools. This was a few months ago, so I don't know if the F2P update changed this (if it even was that way in the beginning).

I tried to go back into my steam support tickets to grab a screenshot of it, but apparently they have all been deleted. Going back into my email and finding the link from the conversation yields "The help request you are trying to view I no longer accessible because it was closed more than 60 days ago." so RIP my proof of this. The support ticket was back on July 17th, 2018

You're betting your life against their skill at operating a complex piece of machinery.

I feel like this is a stupid question when I have an equity exam next week (although I don't really need to know the difference), but I don't really get what is the difference between the three. I know that all of them are trusts that the court will recognise despite nobody formally creating a trust, but I wasn't sure of the exact distinction between the three.

Hey guys, was struggling a bit with my Equity homework, it's a problem question where you are asked to advise on the potential beneficial interests of an unmarried co-habiting couple.

Here is the Question: David and Victoria have been living together since 1990. In 1991 they decide that they need a bigger house. Victoria does not work, so cannot contribute financially to the purchase of a house. David tells her 'Do not worry about the future. You cannot afford a nice house, but I can. I shall always look after you.'

They find a large house. David buys the house outright, without the need for a mortgage and the legal estate is in his name. The house needs much decoration and renovation work, so, as David is busy with his work, Victoria takes charge of this project. She hires the builders, organise supplies of building material and does some decorating.

They have children in 1992 and 1993, but in 2002 David leaves Victoria and the house. He says that he will let her stay in the house until the children are grown up, but then she will have to leave. Victoria maintains the house and pays the household bills. David makes no further financial contribution. In 2013 David wants the house sold, but Victoria claims that the house is half hers.

Advise David upon whether Victoria has any claim to the house and, if so, how large that claim might be.

Where I'm up to: Marriage Act- Ruled out, as does not state they're married. Resulting Trust- Ruled out, as she did not contribute to the purchase price and there is no mortgage. Proprietary Estoppel- Ruled out as kids are other the legal age of adulthood. Constructive trust- Ambiguous whether express intent for equitable interest but arguable both ways, same for any detrimental reliance.

Problems: The quantification part of the constructive trust, finding it difficult to be able to assess if at all how much of a share she should get?

Any help with that or any other insight on the question would be hugely appreciated.

Heavy spoilers for the books and Season 2!

---------------------------------------------------------------

This is not all-encompassing. I'll forget some changes--Heaven knows the writers made enough changes. I'll also preface this by saying: This isn't a commentary on the quality of the season itself. It is simply a collection of the differences between the novel and the show.

Characters

• Voleth Meir is not in the books. Completely new character.
• Geralt wouldn't use Ciri as bait in the books. Nor did he.
• Ciri is never possessed by a witch.
• Yennefer does not lose her magic in the books.
  • Yennefer never considers sacrificing Ciri for power. Nor does the opportunity ever arise.
• Yennefer is not captured by Niilfgard in the books.
  • Instead, she is blinded following Sodden after taking a fireball to the face from Fringilla. She then spends lots of time in recovery, then--on Dijkstra's orders--tails and saves Dandelion from Rience.
  • No one ever thinks she's dead in the books either (Geralt worries that she died after Sodden, if I recall, but finds out rather quickly she's still out there after visiting the Sodden memorial)
• Later in the series (Post Time of Contempt/Late Season 3 or early Season 4 by comparison), people suspect Yennefer of being a Nilfgaardian spy. But at no point does anyone suspect her of being a spy following Sodden.
• In the book, Triss is the Fourteenth mage who died at Sodden Hill (she didn't actually die, but everyone thought she did). In the show, Yennefer becomes the Fourteenth mage who died at Sodden Hill
• The Stregobor stuff isn't a thing in the books. He's there, but plays no important role.
• Vessemir wouldn't try to use Ciri's blood to create more witchers in the books. Nor would he ever allow Ciri to undergo the Trial. Nor would he let Eskel bring a bunch of hookers to Kaer Morhen
• In the books, Dandelion is actively working with Djikstra and the Redanian Secret Service. This is removed in the show It is implied that Djikstra is funding Dandelion's sandpiper activities, though Dandelion doesn't seem to be aware of who he is working with. This is speculative on my part though.
  • Also in the books, Dandelion is not nearly as comedic as he was in Season 2. He is funny, but they seemed to lean into that aspect of him for Season 2.
  • This is more my interpretation, but in the books, Dandelion is far wittier than he is in the show. He certainly doesn't come across as the type to talk to rats in

I only really noticed this now that I became more of the fact that within Hogwarts you are not allowed in other houses' common room's, even when you are with friends from that house. While at first sight, this might not seem like such a problematic idea, at second, it is.

First of all, it promotes the idea that students from other houses are not potential friends, allies or studying partners but dangers to you or your house. You might think I'm exaggerating, but just think about this: Why do you think do the houses feel a need to have a password? Obvious answer: Because they want to keep students from other houses out. And why? Because, and this is the only realistic conclusion here, they are a thread of some kind to you or your house- automatically and undicriminately- just because they are from another house- passwords are always there for safety and protection. That's why we lock our phones, our doors..And the general idea behind it is always the same: Mistrust. You don't trust other people not to steal your data without a PIN code on your phone, and you don't trust strangers enough to leave your door unlocked. At least those two make sense. I can't see why you would need that within Hogwarts houses though. I mean imagine you are a 5th year Ravenclaw- you obviously have no idea who all the 1rst years are, you don't even know their names. So why would a strange 1rst year Gryffindor in your common room be a bigger threat than this strange 1rst year Ravenclaw? It's impossible to know everyone in your houses, but you just trust them, since they are in the same house, they must be safe, outsiders are automatically not, even if one is as strange to you as the other- their only difference is their house. It's a we against the others view, the others can't be trusted so we should stick to our group and not let anyone else in, a few that so far has usually led to nothing but problems, when you look at history. If you still don't think that's a huge problem think of the huge day-to day inconveniences this would cause if you had a friend from another house. First of all, the both of you could never hang out in either of both common rooms, let alone tell each other where your houses' rooms are or let each other near them. So you couldn't even meet up in front of either common room, to pick thump before class, but find some neutral place in the middle of both houses, only that you don't find out where each others' common rooms could possibly be. Or imagine your fri

Hey, this is a throwaway account.

Here is the background info you need to pass judgement: my sister(45) and I(42F) grew up with absent parents. They were successful doctors and honestly did not have time for us.

My sister followed in their footsteps, I married at 22 after attending a very small culinary school and decided to be a housewife. My parents and sister do not like my husband because I spent what was left of my trust paying off his student loans and buying our home.

My sister had a kid when she was 30, ended up being a single mom who is also a doctor. My husband and I stepped up and took over most of his care because I did not want him to grow up like I did. He calls me Mama OP and he calls my husband Papa DH. He also mainly lives with us and only goes home once or twice a week. We also have guardianship over him.

My sister knows and does not mind. Like I said very busy and successful.

We were at my parents for Christmas, they started throwing shade at me (for not being a doctor like them) and at my husband (because of the aforementioned reason). We are used to it and decided years ago that we don't care since we rarely see them and they are great with the kids.

I guess my nephew took offence and he just went off on his grandparents and his mom, some harsh truths were spoken and he ended up telling my sister that he views her as an absent aunt and not his mom. That me and DH are all the parents he needs and wants. He was so upset and tempers were flaring so we took him and our kids and went home.

I tried contacting my sister to tell her that I put him in therapy and that she should attend too to try and fix their relationship but she didn't answer.

It wasn't untill yesterday that she called me drunk and said that I was so jealous of her that I stole her kid and ruined their relationship. I didn't reply and just hanged up on her and sent her a text with all the relevant info about the therapist and schedule so she could attend if she wants to.

But I am feeling so guilty, I never tried to steal her kid, she really loves him. All I did was try to be there for him so he doesn't have the same childhood I did.

So AITA?

Edit: my sister actually helps financially, she takes him shopping and on a yearly vacation and stuff like that, sorry I didn't mention it because I honestly thought it was implied. Thank you fellow redditor who pointed it out.

Hello beautiful apes,

I have some things to share with you that I feel we need to internalize as a community. This is not hopium, and it is not FUD.

This is somewhere in the middle. Giving a realistic perspective on what's actually going on. And it is important that we grasp the severity of the real situation so no one gets trapped anymore.

And the real reason why MOASS is finally upon us. No hype baiting, no calls to action, no dates.

Just sharing my perspective with some strong opinions, speculation, a fun story, and some pictures of charts.

There are 3 sections.

Section 1: Addressing today

Section 2: Story / Thought Experiment

Section 3: Review of charts with lessons learned.

Let's get into it.

Section 1: Addressing today

I know today sucked. I'm mad that I was right. I was hoping it wouldn't be a rug pull. I was hoping the subtle call to action with a time sensitivity that came out of nowhere promising the moon if you do this one thing... would be true.

But we need to learn from this.

I posted 2 posts prior to this one saying to be skeptical about it.

But because neither post went with the narrative being spun, it didn't get any traction. I tried to warn to be cautious of the options trap.

My only thought was.. this looks too perfect. It has to be a trap.

Because MOASS will just fucking happen.. It won't be laid out on the charts. It won't be a subtle bread crumb that we find. It won't be predictable. Someone's not going to come out of nowhere and say "GUYS LOOK AT THIS THING I FOUND IN THE CHART AND IT WILL HAPPEN ON THIS DAY AND ONLY THIS DAY BECAUSE XYZ"...

It will be a sudden violent shift up. It will be a fucking Tsunami that hits everyone by surprise. It will be an asteroid in the dark. A black hole that swallows the entire financial sector and there's not a damned thing they can do to stop it. And not a damned thing any one of us, neither individually nor collectively can do to make it happen any faster.

The only thing I as an individual investor can do to secure the investment that I believe in, is to buy, hold and make sure that share is in my fucking name by direct registering it. That's all. Nothing else.

Options.. somebody show me one law that states MM must hedge with shares which drives a gamma squeeze?

Someone show me a law that states the calls being exercised must be purchased on a lit exchange, and can not be a synthetic fake share that they internalized?

BY ALL MEANS if you wan

There are a couple of things going on with my post here...

1. I am not kidding, I told my mother about Bitcoin and since then she is asking me constantly how she can exchange her spare money to Bitcoin.

2. That's actually cool, but I constantly have to install a fresh Windows installation on her notebook as she is a master to destroy things (I am not kidding, it's actually less work to just reinstall Windows freshly on her PC after the data backup)

3. This implies I don't trust her to hold value, so called Bitcoins on her PC with any wallet. This also implies that I rather would suggest to hold her private keys and passwords.

4. This also implies that I actually maybe even would suggest her to use a middleman... Coinbase. She did at least never did something awful with her PayPal account, that means I she probably also wouldn't mess with Coinbase, at least not if there is SMS authentification like on PayPal (don't know if Coinbase does offer this).

5. And the point, something I realize... I do not think that the average people will ever understand how to use Bitcoin, unless they use a middleman like Coinbase. Thus, only a centralized Bitcoin can go mainstream, that's what I do think at the moment.

Of course, I assume some hardcore people here will flame me to hell for this opinion. But I do more and more think that this is exactly the case. If something will ever go mainstream, then it will most likely not be Bitcoin, it will be a payment provider like Coinbase that makes use of Bitcoin.

Thoughts?

Hi folks. As per my previous post(s), I've been doing a fan edit of Season 1 into a movie since the holidays. We are nearing completion (should be done this weekend if I can push through). Currently on the third rev of the film, and I can safely say I've watched each and every scene and dialog at least 10 times over, with a detailed analytical eye for what matters to the season arc and implications for later seasons. I've kept a close eye on what could be removed to reduce runtime, without cutting major plot elements.

One thing that really stuck with me: I'm amazed at how much I've been able to cut out WITHOUT impacting (and in some cases improving) the plot, characterization and worldbuilding. I wanted to share my thoughts below, coming from the perspective of storytelling efficiency and how I think the showrunners prioritized their airtime. I hope this is insightful and brings something new to the discourse.

1. The showrunners prioritize their time for character "vignettes" and moments of spectacle, at the expense of plot progression - this is seen in the time allocated to the Women's Circle ceremony, Rand/Eg multiple times, Manetheren song, Lan's family, Warder camp, Stepin and funerals, as well as the "epic spectacle" moments: Trolloc horde lightning, Nynaeve halos x2. In the fan edit, I was able to delete entire vignettes without affecting the story at all
2. There is extreme inefficiency in the writing (1) - good screenwriting should always achieve multiple things simultaneously, at least 2 out of: story progression, story setup or payoff, character development, word building, etc. at the same time. WoT S1 fails to do this. The character vignette moments often grind the plot to a dead halt (funerals), while the plot moments often do not drive character (5 channelers vs Trolloc army)
3. There is extreme inefficiency in the writing (2) - there are many scenes that seem interesting in the moment, but become pointless when considering the season arc. Rand and Egwene argue about her becoming a Wisdom, break up, make up, then argue again about her becoming an Aes Sedai. This is simply inefficient storytelling, it renders the earlier argument narratively useless. There are other examples throughout the season, for example the Fal Dara "our father's armor" scene (side note: what the hell was that about?). In the fan edit, I've managed to cut out all these pointless scenes without affecting the season arc.
4. **The writing and shooting