Say I have 5 creatures on the board, including [[Adrix and Nev, Twincasters]] and a [[Biomathematician]].

I play [[Echoing Equation]] targeting Adrix and Nev, and then an unkicked [[Rite of Replication]] targeting the Biomathematician (that's a copy of Adrix and Nev until end of turn). This would create 2^(5)=32 non-legendary token copies of Adrix and Nev.

At end of turn, will the tokens turn into copies of Biomathematician, or will they stay on as copies of Adrix and Nev?

i've asked a question on mathexchange here

it seems latex formatting does not work in reddit and so i've opted to link to the mathexchange question. (mathexchange isn't paid so i hope it's okay?)

max-min compositions made sense to me, so that served as my starting point. i tried different orders of dot product and the operation described in the paper: α⊕β=min(1,α+β) but none of my attempts ever equated to what the result was on the paper. except on the dot product i describe on the mathexchange question.

hoping somebody could lend a hand on this one.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

This post is an in depth analysis of a massive trade I made this year.

It will teach you how to evaluate trading opportunities like a professional.

This post is going to go through the trade from start to finish, with the hopes that it gives you some insight as to what it takes to find a really great edge in the market.

Now, full disclosure. This is a trade that was brought to my attention by a fried of mine. In late august he shared a really interesting idea with a ton of alpha and in this post I will be taking you through how he found it, the thesis he came up with and how he priced it out.

And to give you an idea of how big this trade was, between those I personally knew who were in the trade, we had a combined -30,000 vega exposure.

Note: If you want to read all the parts of my options guide, click here for a list of my posts.

The Opportunity:

In July and August of 2021 was when tensions with China really started to grow. The Evergrande crisis was in full swing, companies were under pressure from the Chinese government, and foreign relations with China seemed a bit more uncertain than usual.

KWEB down 35% when we began looking into this trade

We saw Chinese stocks take a massive hit, down about 35% in just a few weeks.

The trade involved selling volatility on KWEB, which is the China Internet Index.

It consists of China based companies whose primary business is focused on internet products/services (Similar companies to Google, FB, Twitter, Amazon, etc).

At first glance, a high level of volatility seems pretty justified. But remember, high volatility and expensive volatility are not the same thing. For example, implied volatility could be too high.

Most traders would't go near a situation like this...

But it is precisely these types of situations that can create opportunity for us to find really big edges.

You see, markets are pretty efficient. There are many smart players. But when things get shaken up, efficiency decreases and a few dollars fall through the cracks for smart traders to scoop up.

Understanding the opportunities around distressed market situations

Before we get into the trade research, we need to understand the scenario.

Here's an analogy I u

I should clarify that I played Habbo back in its hayday, so things might have changed since then. I didn’t even realise that the game was still going until I logged back in today. I’ll be talking about the game in past tense, even though it technically still exists. If I say something which is now out of date, please correct me in the comments.

Also, beware that this post contains racism, antisemitism, paedophilia, and child exploitation.

If you're ready, then take your room key, open the door, and descend with me into the depths of hell.

#Welcome to the Hotel

Habbo was an online game created in 1999 by Sulake, a Finnish Company, though it found its feet in England. The premise was simple - players created and decorated rooms, customised their outfits, and interacted with others. It found its greatest success in the early 2000s, aimed at people too old for Club Penguin but not old enough for Second Life. While it was possible to enjoy Habbo for free – it cost nothing to sign up and you could spend time in its large ‘public’ rooms – the game became aggressively monetised early on, and pioneered systems which would only become commonplace years later. Since you could not buy furniture without spending money, your rooms would be barren and grey, and you would have very ugly clothing options. The game was based around money and materialism. It was a capitalist playground designed for children. There were a LOT of disappointed parents who found out their kids had snuck out their credit cards, or called the Habbo Credits line during the night. They were simply helpless in the face of a company psychologically manipulating them to spend, and this was before society had come to recognise these techniques.

Players were able to pay real-world money in order to buy credits, the game’s currency, and these could be used to purchase furniture from the game’s virtual catalogue. Habbo set up [numerous brand deals]( http

Hello Apes! My wrinkle brain friends u/zinko83, u/MauerAstronaut, u/Lennixus, u/criand and several others have recently written some excellent DD's and posts on recent developments in wrinkle-brain GME theory, namely these excellent posts on volatility swaps, options hedging using variance swaps, as well as u/Leenixus' excellent Dick-Dick today

If you haven't seen these, please take a moment and go read these DD's that explain how shorts continue to mess with our favorite company and how we can predict price action within some degree of accuracy. To sum it up quickly, here's a quick quote from u/zinko83's post on variance:

> Hedge funds sell variance making them short, which in turn requires them to hold a portfolio of long OTM options to hedge the short swap. This should be making lightbulbs turn on, if it doesn’t go check Citadel Advisors, Susquehanna, Simplex holdings and see they hold not only puts but calls come back and stare at the replicating above, it will click eventually.

And from u/mauerastronaut’s post on variance swaps:

> GME options chain is indicative of the “Replicating Portfolio” used to hedge short variance exposure. This portfolio involves long puts and calls, short forwards and a rather small position in shares. Assuming open naked shorts on GME, willing counterparties for short forwards would be market makers or prime brokers trying to get around close-outs through deemed-to-own clauses. Short variance exposure can explain many events that happened this year around the stock, but not correlations to other tickers. We believe it to be a major driver of GME’s stock price. It is suspicious that the options chain looks like this in such an obvious way, since doing a complete hedge usually burns the premiums collected, and also is sending very clear signals which investment firms usually try to circumvent.

> Whales bet that banana wouldn’t go up and down a lot, but it did. Open banana options suggest this, and maybe help explain where fake bananas came from. Banana value moves because whales are trying to not get fukd. Whales normally are not that obvious, which tells us something. The question is what.

In light of this new

0. Preface

I am not a financial advisor and I am not providing financial advice.

But I am a SNEK. At least, I am a Snek to all of the anti-ComputerShare and anti-DRS posters.

I have yet to see anything countering the main benefit of registering, which is locking up float certificates. Which can lead to the MOASS.

In my opinion it is the only way to MOASS.

I keep seeing FUD and skepticism on ComputerShare. It's slowly dying off, but I think it is too important for me to not continue pushing this.

So, hopefully, this clears it up for skeptics or those who are cautious and why DRS is the way.

Guess what baby. I'm not even really a Pomeranian. Mwahaha. I'm a Snek Skeletor! Ah ah ah ah.

I knew that damn Pomeranian was a shill this whole time.

Sorry if anyone has fear of snakes. Hopefully the above is less spooky.

1. Understand possible risks by registering. Research yourself before registering any shares.

As a boiler plate, you will want to understand some potential risks behind registering your shares. Again - not financial advice. It is your choice on whether or not to direct register. In my opinion the pros of direct registering vastly outweigh the cons, but don't take my word for it.

From ComputerShare itself, the securities are not protected by standard SIPC or FDIC insurance:

>CIP accounts, the securities held therein and any cash temporarily held on behalf of a Participant are not deposits of Computershare and are not insured by the Securities Investor 14 Protection Corporation (SIPC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or any other federal or state agency

This is mainly because your shares are not "street name" registered any more but rather "book name" registered via direct registration. So, that is something to consider.

Another concern is selling shares which obviously is a key point to push for FUD. If we go back in time to /u/ajquick's post, they crush the FUD about selling shares and other concerns.

Take a look at their post if you want an in-depth explanation of why the FUD is peddled to make you s

Simplex Trading, LLC held the largest reported GME put position at over 82k contracts until the Jul 16 expiry, yet very little DD has been written on the firm, until now. Simplex misfiled their 13F earlier this year and highlighted the cost basis of their 82k puts was only 0.16. Given this cost basis, and their overall position, it is clear their option position is a hedge against a non-reported OTC derivative contract known as a variance swap (VS). While the math in this post will be complex at times, I hope to break it down to make it simple to understand what a VS is and what the Value at Risk (VaR) implications are without needing to fully understand how the math behind these calculations work. I'm going to try to keep things simplex. I am not a financial advisor, this is not financial advice, and I will highlight what is speculative when applicable. This post should help you understand how GME, a mid cap stock with a mere $16 billion market cap, is an idiosyncratic risk to financial stability and capable of causing a systemically catastrophic market event due to overleveraged short exposure on both the price and the volatility of the stonk.

The direct registration of GME shares has already started to significantly impact the price of GME, and is the most critical aspect of the 🚀 launching successfully. The flight path to the 🌙 is set, but a sudden decline in DRS would potentially choke off the fuel supply needed to exit the atmosphere, and may cause GME to come crashing back down to earth. This is not FUD, DRS is the way, and if you are not familiar with directly registering GME in your name or how to directly purchase GME shares, please read A Complete Guide to Computershare first. Seats in the 🚀 start at $25, however, tickets are limited and supply is running out. Buckle up, the launch countdown has started, and there will be turbulence after liftoff.

**TA;DR - In late Jan 2021, someone purchased variance swaps on GME after the buy button was removed and volatility peaked. Simplex Trading was one of many VS sellers and still holds open risk exposure to GME volatility. DRS has impacted GME prices by decreasing the supply of shares needed to effectively suppress volatility, and accelerated the timeframe of the buying/selling cycles. The consistent rate of GME DRS has started a countdown to

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

Dear ASOIAF I need an intervention, I've recently been brainstorming a certain theory, reluctantly at first, but the more I started onto things the more it... started to kind of click together and, on some level at least, it started to feel almost like a real possibility. More and more I delved, gnawing away at my sanity until at last had been completely worn away, replaced with.... something else. Something new. And when I got to the end I took a deep breath and a dark moment to reflect, and realized 'no its too precious I could never post this to asoiaf they would never understand' because its basically got everything pretty much everyone hates in one convenient place. Including bold controversial claims about Euron's plans. But at the same time it feels like I just need to get it off my chest and be done with it. Also the voices in my head just want to watch the world burn. They tell me get ready to dry our eyes, they tell me to polish your downvotes and pull out your book lighters, they tell me they are still writing TWOW. we are gorging on grief like at Summerhall today. secret targaryens? check.

D&D getting credit for something about Euron? check (... but I mean, the show still does it horribly)

Sort of implies Aegon is (f)Aegon. Are we getting in the middle of that too? sure, why not. check.

Euron as a major villain but not doing the cool lovecraftian ritual thing? check, check.

The return of 'we think she's dumb' Cersei? 'no. please you can't do this to us.' sorry kiddo, check.

Intentionally picked a terrible acronym equation thing for the theory name? c+heck.

GRRM laughing maniacally in the background? check.

Varys is a merman? No. Look, NO, ok?! Even I have my limits....

But hey I'd like to think there's still a little something in here for everyone to hate anyways. And maybe the best shitposts have just enough plausibility to make you dread the possibility....

=================================

When the "kraken weds the dragon, brother, let all the world beware"

We are talking of course of...... Euron and Cersei

Not Dany. Not Victarion. Not whatever else we were all (myself included) originally writing down in our secret diary of TWOW headcanon. Down the rabbit hole we go.

====================================

Jaime and Cersei are the blood of Aerys The first stab is the hardest:

I've seen a lot of people suggest there's no evidence for it, but I think there is more of a case than some would like to admit.... at le

As is almost always the case when a new system challenges an established paradigm, the existing powers-that-be will naturally not abandon their gravy trains without a fight. Further, apart from these external threats, there are internal, self-created risks that can emerge as the new system transitions from upstart newcomer to becoming the new dominant paradigm itself.

In order to prompt discussion about how to overcome and protect against certain existential threats Brave, Inc. and BAT may face in the years to come, I am posting a series on five major risks I see from a top-down, macro perspective. As a society, it would be preferable for the Brave model to succeed, lest we become doomed to a life of eternal asymmetric information exploitation. If you have any ideas about how these threats can be mitigated, please share.

Existential Risk No. 1 – Capture-and-Kill.

One of the most significant risks I see is the classic buy-and-kill strategy, or variation thereof. Buy-and-neuter? If I were Google, Microsoft, or any one of a dozen top media conglomerates, you can bet I would be thinking hard about how to capture Brave, Inc. Convertible-debt financing? Warrant plays? I would have our bankers calling the Brave team offering cash and loans up the wazoo, in the hopes of getting a piece of the equity and decision-making pie. If the leaders at the top were not amenable, then we would work the junior execs as part of a long game.

I understand Brave, Inc. wishes to remain private. That is good. Ideally, if all goes well, Brave, Inc. will be one of the first companies in the next 5-7 years that goes “public” via an entirely new crypto ownership structure, which would ideally be less vulnerable to the questionable games allowed by the regulators of our current equity markets (naked shorting/synthetic shares, cellar boxing, PnDing on vulnerable retail investors, stop-loss harvesting, etc.).

As Brave fans, we should all be aware that the pressure is only going to grow as Brave, Inc. gets bigger, to sell its soul, as countless companies have done before it. This is where faith and trust in the Brave, Inc. leadership comes in. We should be rooting for them to maintain their vision and integrity as the road gets tougher, because it will.

Existential Risk No. 2 – Dilution and/or Substitution, a la BAT 2.0.

It is tempting to believe that there will forever be precisely 1.5 billion BAT, and that these BAT will always be fungible with the original BAT. I

Update: the author David Bogert has replied to me on Facebook with an insult

Update 2: The author as of 25/12/21 edited the 'Ammonia in depth' page and made several changes (yet again) to his calculations to push his agenda that ammonia is not really toxic at all to fishes. This is an archived copy, showing that he used a pH of 7 and a temperature of 28-30 degrees C (which wasn't made clear and I pointed it out in this post) that has a unionized ammonia value of 0.747% which requires the multiplication of 134(100/0.747) to get the total ammonia level. In his new edit, he has made clear the temperature used to get his calculations, BUT has changed it so drastically (from 29 to 25 degrees C), which results in the multiplication value of 177(100/0.566). What this means is that he can artificially increase the total ammonia concentration compared to his previous calculations to push his agenda that ammonia isn't at all toxic to fishes. Talk about being disingenuous.

Update 3: The author has added a long section on his frontpage as a response to my post (not sure if I should feel honoured). Claims that his website is now based on "logic" and Science as opposed to purely science before the edit, and thus do not require citations on bold claims. Also changed his tone from "I am an expert on doing literature searches, data analysis, statistics and on the design of experiments, I also have tons of aquariums, so I am an expert enough to produce 350 articles on ALL aspects of fishkeeping" to "nobody can be a true expert in all aspects of fishkeeping". The author has also added a small portion to address my concerns about his inconsistent bottled bacteria experiment, which had two different conditions (phosphate vs no phosphate) for a simple goal of testing if bottled bacteria actually works. He now also claims that the data was statistically supported by reputable software, but in his old article mentioned nothing about that. He also claims that there are no other experiments that confirms the opposite of his experiment which makes his irrefutably true and accurate even given the faulty experimental design. He forgets that his conclusion is that all bottled bacteria do not speed up the cycling of an aquarium, but goes on to contradict himself by saying that Dr Tim's did have a positive effect. He also claims that the "Three re

Hi! I'm Matteo and I'm a game designer.

I recently released my first Forged in the Dark game (based on the Blades in the Dark ruleset), Bloodstone, and I wanted to share the mechanics of which I am most proud: the Stamina system instead of Stress.

I'm here to collect feedback, discuss the design of the Stress system in Blades and the possible hacks, and maybe to inspire other designers or players to try to hack Blades themself (it's a really amazing game system, and I'm in love with it).

How Stress Works in Blades

The player has a pool of 8 Stress points which they can spend in various ways. The two most common are:

• Spend 2 points to get + 1d to the Action Roll (the roll the player does, facing a risky situation). Generally, the dice pool is 1-3, based on the action used, plus extra dice (gathered spending 2 stress points or through the help of another PC). A player can spend ONLY 2 stress points per roll, to gather a +1d.
• Resist the consequences of an action, paying a variable amount of stress (from 0 to 5), established by the Resistance Roll. Resist to a consequence is automatic, the player rolls only to determine how much stress they will spend.

Stress is recovered in the downtime phase, between one score and the next one.

How Stamina works in Bloodstone

The Stamina system is slightly different. The main source of inspiration is Bloodborne (yeah, I really like that From Software game), and I needed to tweak the Stress to match a different game experience I want to bring to the table (more action-oriented).

All characters have 3 stamina points.

These points can be used:

• To get extra dice during an Action Roll (character attributes range from 1 to 3, so on average 2 dice are rolled during an Action Roll, which equates to a 30% chance of succeeding without consequences). For each Stamina point "spent" (a somewhat misleading term, it is probably better to say "staked", as if it were a bet), the player gets + 1d.

>The results of action roll are (both in Blades and in my game):
6s -> critical success
6 -> success
4/5 -> success with consequences
1-3 -> failure with consequences

• To resist the consequences: Stamina points are the only pool from which players can draw for the Resistance Roll. Unlike in Blades, in Bloodstone the resistance is not automatic: if you want to resist, you have to roll and hope to get a good result.

>The result of the **resistance ro

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

TL/DR Understanding why and exactly how AST Bluebird type satellites can connect to hundreds of millions of ordinary cellular phones at broadband speeds in over a million cellular sites worldwide requires understanding of a technique called beamforming. This writeup tries to illustrate and explain some of how and why that is done.

An example

Let us imagine a deployed and operational Bluebird satellite orbiting over USA at 700 kilometers altitude from west to east that lights up a beam cell in and around the valley of Lordsburg Draw in New Mexico near the border of Arizona. I know very little about that particular valley, but Wikipedia tells me nearby Lordsburg had a declining population in the latest census when it fell below 3000 inhabitants, so it should qualify as an example of rural USA. I also know this part of the USA is semi-arid and hot to the extent that cellular coverage and positioning saves lives regularly.

The city of Lordsburg is an testament to the importance of infrastructure as it was founded in1880 on the route of the Southern Pacific Railroad, because of that railroad. And figuratively Lordsburg is the final destination in the movie Stagecoach. Compared to railroads the stagelines were an older preceeding technology.

Let us look at that scene from a distance.

Low earth orbit is fast

Our Bluebird travels with an airspeed of 7,5 km/ second. Passing Texas west tip to its east tip (773 miles) 1244 km in 2.8 minutes it will be back on the same side of the planet again in 1.6 hours.While doing this it plots a projected ground trajectory seen as a faint green line and an actual trajectory in Low earth orbit seen as a yellow line, in figure 2.

This means for our Bluebird that from the time it is directly overhead (blue beam in fig2) to when it passes away from the satellites footprint and the satellite is no longer able to connect (black beam) it is just 3 minutes of time, and then another satellite takes over the job of keeping that particular beamcell connected.

The figures here is Field of view dependent and just my assumptions to a large extent. But AST Spacemobile application states the system is capable to provide service to 58 degrees of boresight (see figure 1). "Nadir" we also call this angle looking straight down on earth. So that is a 116 degree field of view. If you want to visualize that, close one eye as the visual field of one eye spans about the same angle. Another way is to look at the image below. The blac

Posting this from a burner account for obvious reasons. I have been doing some research regarding PE and wanted to put some of it here to hopefully open a discussion. Apologies for the book I have written below, but it contains some information regarding strategies I have tried (including some that have worked). I do ask that people do not judge, as I am putting deeply personal information here in an attempt for us all to succeed. I'll start with a little about myself

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A DOCTOR, AND SOME INFERENCES I MAKE MIGHT BE INCORRECT

I'm a male in his 20's currently struggling with PE. I'm fairly thin, not in great shape but certainly not in bad shape. I drink and smoke (weed) fairly regularly (both are known to cause PE). Since becoming sexually active (mid teens, before drinking / smoking), I have always been fairly quick to finish, however I feel it has likely gotten worse over the past couple years. After being in a non-sexual relationship for the last year, I am now single and getting back to having sex. I quickly noticed that my PE had actually gotten worse, and did not seem to be getting better. This led me to looking deeply in to why this was happening, to see what methods I could use to combat PE. While I am not a doctor, and have no in-depth prior experience with neurology, I work in STEM, and have always found that analytical approaches are the best for solving issues. My below findings have been over the course of about 4 months.

How I got sent down this rabbit hole:

I started with asking "When does this (PE) happen?". Since I don't have a partner to regularly test with, I decided to use porn as a control variable. I would experiment with different types / camera angles, and found that this had some impact on my IELT. Generally, however, I would only last between 1-2 minutes (lowest 50s, highest 1m 45s).

I then decided to cut out porn and any visual / audio stimuli. This increased my IELT by about 1m (so 2m-3m total), however as my end goal is to last longer with a partner, this was not exactly a step in the right direction. I then tried to see if I could distract myself, while not using porn, to see how long I could last. I did this by doing simple math in my head. There were three types of math problems I would do: calculating any single digit number to the nth power (highest possible), doing basic polynomial derivations, and determining whether or not any random 5 digit number was divisible by

They’re on standbi

Everyone knows that, overall, the balance of 5e is skewed in favor of spellcasters, especially at higher levels. I want to look at this issue in depth and go over all of the numbers and potential fixes.

The Issue

High level spellcasters pull far and away from high level martials in almost every way. Around the mid-game, the two categories are (believed to be) fairly equal, and in the early game, martials tend to fare a little better. Spellcasters are not only capable of high damage to multiple targets, but they have a vast number of utility options completely unavailable to martials. Spellcasters have the most varied and effective means of controlling a battlefield, and they even have more extensive defensive options. There is almost nothing a martial can do that a spellcaster cannot, but the same is not true the other way around. Some martials aren't even that good at dealing damage, which is the main draw of a martial character (other than simplicity, I suppose).

Low Tier Play

Let's look over the numbers here. I'll look at 3rd, 11th, and 17th level to represent low, mid, and high tier play. We're going to compare a Battle Master Fighter and Evocation wizard. First, the Battle Master.

The fighter can make one attack, or two with Action Surge. This attack would deal, let's say, 2d6+3 damage (avg 10). The high AC of the fighter (lets presume a heavy armor user) will be helpful in mitigating damage, as will the fighter's Second Wind. As far as utility and skill use goes, Strength fighters tend to have very little. Dex-based martials can fulfill the scout role, however. A wizard of this level has access to 4 level 1 spells, 2 level 2 spells, and their cantrips. The average firebolt deals 5.5 points of damage, but fire damage is commonly resisted, which is important to keep in mind. Beyond this, there's the staple spell Magic Missile, which deals an average of 10.5 damage, slightly more than the fighter, and can hit up to 3 targets. This is where the key distinction between spellcasters and martials lie: endurance. The fighter can make its 10 damage weapon attack forever. Once a wizard has used Magic Missile 4 times, they're tapped. So, let's compare this over an adventuring day. With the recommended 6-8 encounters (which, importantly does NOT mean 6-8 combat encounters, but includes exploration and social ventures), let's assume 3-4 of those encounters are combat, and the rest exploration or social. Given this, how much is the fighter's endur

I wanna preface this by saying that I'm completely open to new ideas and interpretations, as I am still very young and just beginning in this journey. Also, this is kind of a long read. I have a very convoluted series of thoughts, and am attempting to convey them as best as I can.

Sleep & Dreams

Due to much success and familiarity with the practice of lucid dreaming, I wanna say that I now realize how sleep and dreaming, as acts, relate to the concepts of death, the afterlife, and the overall experience of life. If we truly consider the act of sleep, it implies much more than what most of us are accustomed to. It is an innate and vital function to lay ourselves down, and bring about self-imposed amnesia. After we've returned to this amnesiac state, becoming a formless sense of awareness, the act of dreaming begins in which we're subject to different compilations and forms of subconscious material. During the act of dreaming, we have no awareness of the fact that we are actually in a dream. However, upon gaining lucidity (awareness that the current reality is a dream), we have the ability to change the dream as we please, because we are aware that the entirety of the dreamscape is created by us. Please keep this in mind. Now, I think most of us are familiar with John 3:16. In Neville's interpretation (which I agree with), God lays itself down in Man to become Man, and if Man were to believe in this truth, Man would be reawakened as God. Please follow as I try to connect these dots if they are not already clear. God (us), lays itself down in the skull of Man, in order to give Man life. God (us) imposes an amnesiac state on itself, and purposefully but unknowingly dreams the dream of Man, in which it is subject to the narratives and forms of the individual dreamer's subconscious. Our ability to become lucid during the act of dreaming mirrors, and in my opinion TEACHES us that our goal is to reawaken as God in the act of dreaming Man. In turn, our ability to change the dreamscape when we become lucid mirrors our ability to consciously change our realities when we realize our divinity.

Death, Afterlife, Life

This is much more difficult to communicate, as many are not accustomed to the practice of lucid dreaming. If you are familiar with lucid dreaming, please comment and tell me your own thoughts. Lucidity is like a status that constantly fluctuates. There are many cases where I'll gain lucidity in a dream only to have it collapse as I return b

Pilot on me!!

The fact that a majority of bi people are in heterosexual relationships is often brought up in online arguments to prove that bisexuals are actually straight people LARPing, or that we have internalized homophobia or something. This idea comes from two PEW Research Studies, one from 2013, and one from 2017. A 2021 Gallup poll found similar results. The difference with the Gallup poll is that a "single" category was included, which found the majority of bi people were single. But among partnered bi people, 89% were in heterosexual relationships and 10% were in same-gender relationships.

Bi people often respond to this by saying it's a numbers game. This seems a bit weak to me though. I think there are so many variables at play here that just saying it's all numbers is reductive. It also doesn't address the "internalized homophobia" argument.

The 2017 study includes a chart that shows 40% of bisexuals are mostly attracted to the opposite gender, ie they're mostly straight. So it's pretty obvious why they're in heterosexual relationships. 43% are equally attracted to men and women, and with them, the numbers argument works a bit better, although other factors like religion, wanting biological kids, unplanned pregnancies, etc. 12% are mostly attracted to the same gender, and they match exactly to the 12% in same-gender relationships.

The chart has some other weird features though. 1.) 1% of gays and lesbians are attracted to both genders equally, and 14% are mostly attracted to the same gender. Since most gays/lesbians are in same-gender relationships, these would technically be bisexuals in same-gender relationships. If these people are all in same-gender relationships, then the percent of bi people in same-gender relationships rises to 27%.

If these people aren't dealing with comphet or internalized homophobia, th

Nothing, he was gladiator.

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

• Part 1 (you are here)
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4

Men face longer prison sentences for the exact same crime. They are more likely to be shot to death by police, to be homeless, to be murdered, and to be suicidal. Men work longer hours even when unpaid work is considered and are more likely to die on the job than women, and even though they earn more money, women are responsible for the majority of consumer spending decisions and reap more in tax benefits than do men. In some countries, men are forced into gender-based conscription. Boys get lower grades for doing the same exact work as girls, and young men enroll in college at a much lower rate than women. Men are also not protected from domestic violence, despite research showing that domestic violence directed at men is at least as, if not

I won't be doing that today!

When I got home, they were still there.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

-1. AMC Preface

Howdy fellow apes. I'm from the other tree and the majority of this is written in the perspective of GameStop. But the same exact content applies to AMC. I see tons of FUD over here about ComputerShare and I think it is mostly baseless conjecture. I think it's better to crush this FUD and spread the word.

0. Preface

I am not a financial advisor and I am not providing financial advice.

But I am a SNEK. At least, I am a Snek to all of the anti-ComputerShare and anti-DRS posters.

I have yet to see anything countering the main benefit of registering, which is locking up float certificates. Which can lead to the MOASS.

In my opinion it is the only way to MOASS.

I keep seeing FUD and skepticism on ComputerShare. It's slowly dying off, but I think it is too important for me to not continue pushing this.

So, hopefully, this clears it up for skeptics or those who are cautious and why DRS is the way.

Guess what baby. I'm not even really a Pomeranian. Mwahaha. I'm a Snek Skeletor! Ah ah ah ah.

I knew that damn Pomeranian was a shill this whole time.

Sorry if anyone has fear of snakes. Hopefully the above is less spooky.

1. Understand possible risks by registering. Research yourself before registering any shares.

As a boiler plate, you will want to understand some potential risks behind registering your shares. Again - not financial advice. It is your choice on whether or not to direct register. In my opinion the pros of direct registering vastly outweigh the cons, but don't take my word for it.

From ComputerShare itself, the securities are not protected by standard SIPC or FDIC insurance:

>CIP accounts, the securities held therein and any cash temporarily held on behalf of a Participant are not deposits of Computershare and are not insured by the Securities Investor 14 Protection Corporation (SIPC), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) or any other federal or state agency

This is mainly because your shares are not "street name" registered any more but rather "book name" registered via direct registration. So, that is something to consider.

Another concern is selling shares which obviously is a key point to p