I plan to use DFT methods to characterize a molecule for my bachelor thesis since I'm interested in molecular modeling, but have since found out this is under the purview of chemistry (particularly quantum chemistry).
How do I make my approach more in-line with my field? Is molecular modeling a weird topic for a physics major?

The age old question, is the jump in price from 64GB to 256GB needed?
I just checked the storage on my 256GB iPhone and I’ve only used 42.9 (I’ve had the phone for over 2 years).
Mail takes up the most with 2.11GB (but that’s work emails which I wouldn’t be putting on the iPad). Twitter is next with 1.74GB followed by Podcasts with 1.61GB.
It fizzles out after that across many random apps.
Oddly enough, I thought the Photos app would have hogged more than 630MB but I do have optimized images turned on.
I’ll be using an iPad for reading, writing, browsing and consuming content (nothing too big).
What do you reckon? Is 64 enough?
I’ve always gone under the assumption that 256 offers security but after looking at my current iPhone storage and then comparing the astronomical 256 iPad pricing here in Spain, 64 (if feasible) really softens the blow.
Thoughts?

Hi everyone, so I have had this idea all year and I have been meaning to implement and leave my current job as I’m no longer happy working under someone and getting burnout almost everyday. I’m a software engineer and want to be a solo entrepreneur. The thing is that I have already drafted my business documents and all that but having confusion on how or where to start designing the website/app (ps I already have a name and logo) there are so much design systems and all that online that it’s confusing on how to start on figma. So my question is that is there a standard or more clear way to bring an idea to life using UI/Ux without me hiring one. I want the complete industry standard of how a startup raises their ideas to real life and other steps or guidelines of a startup I should follow. Thanks for answering nicely 🙏🫡

arduino Monthly digest for 2023-05

Wiki updates

During the course of this month we received our first wiki contribution from one of our members.
u/Bitwise_Gamgee has contribute a guide that explains the difference between delay() and millis() and some use cases for both.
Have a look at our latest wiki guide A better delay using millis supplied by u/Bitwise_Gamgee.
After checking out that page, you might want to browse some of our other wiki resources including:

• FAQs
• Glossary
• A list of Milestones that Arduino has achieved.

Other resources

If you are new, or want to provide guidance to new users who are unaware of how to properly create "please help me" style posts, you might want to refer them to any (or all) of these "how to post" guides.

• How to post tips - especially useful if you are seeking help,
• Getting started guides,
• Fixing Upload Issues
• Learning about Breadboards
• and even more guides

You can always access the Wiki (and these digests) by selecting the Wiki or Monthly Digest menu items situated at the top of the Arduino feed.
Don't forget to check out our wiki for up to date guides, FAQ, milestones, glossary and more.
You can find our wiki at the top of the Arduino posts feed and in our "tools/reference" sidebar panel. The sidebar also has a selection of links to additional useful information and tools.

Moderator's Choices

Title	Author	Score	Comments
A nuclear power plant with some issues	u/netzmensch	1,045	71
Testing Speech Recognition(Voice User I...	u/0015dev	578	54
PSA: You're probably using delay() when...	u/Bitwise_Gamgee	324	51
Robotic arm control with muscle command...	u/the_3d6	166	14
Coffee fountain	u/fire-marshmallow	130	21
Made a Newton's cradle that never stops	u/XienixPS	13	3
What have you accomplished with your ar...	u/simonniz	3	20

Top Posts

Title	Author	Score	Comments
A nuclear power plant with some issues	u/netzmensch	1,045	71
Finally AMOLED display on the developme...	u/Volos2016	783	77
Update	u/51herringsinabar	730	55
386V Multistage CoilGun	u/Cali_or-Bust	685	69
I made a mouse from toy gun	u/cevatssr	674	53
Testing Speech Recognition(Voice User I...	u/0015dev	578	54
This is T-display S3, ESP32 board porgr...	u/Volos2016	544	17
There comes a time in every person's li...	u/Working_Celery_8958	541	69
I made an Arduino-Based Breath-Controll...	u/Polypeptide	526	45
Esp32-iLi9341 Vader's Tie Hud	u/Kick-bak-AU	507	18

Look what I made posts

Title	Author	Score	Comments
I made a mouse from toy gun	u/cevatssr	674	53
I made a RC Truck LED Police Light Flas...	u/HAZI_TECH	473	45
Arduino spy tech - overhead satellite d...	u/okuboheavyindustries	467	24
I hit a milestone on my arduino journey...	u/Soggy_Stargazer	396	30
A little DIY universal remote control I...	u/cello-mike	389	20
I saw some Mohit Bhoite inspired sculpt...	u/Hookiebookie_	386	50
3D printed Hexagon Heat from Mario Part...	u/adamblake89	386	17
Getting friendly with FastLED.	u/SkyFoxIV	365	20
I made an Arduino gameboy	u/fueled_by_noodles	348	23
Robot lander circuit sculpture	u/okuboheavyindustries	340	32
Phone controlled door lock	u/koiyaboi	253	64
My first project!	u/Aardkak2	238	24
Just a simple little barometer	u/Akul_24	171	16
The next birthday present: A fully auto...	u/netzmensch	162	15
Prosthetic arm that works on any muscle...	u/jerzku	156	9
I couldn't find a wifi thermometer with...	u/keatonatron	154	20
Advanced Line Follower Version 2.0!	u/Sagnicbasu	141	7
Current Todos: fix the eye, give him a ...	u/Renegade_Designer	127	9
Robotic arm without 3d printer	u/Flashy-Specialist-69	112	12
Fun arm project	u/froggyCaller	96	13
Developed a Bluetooth Robot Car that ca...	u/parikshitpagare	88	22
Arduino to control the dinosaur game	u/klim_ma	86	12
LED Animated Keychain ATtiny85	u/HAZI_TECH	83	13
my first star wars droid!	u/fire-marshmallow	81	7
Checking which satellites are above the...	u/okuboheavyindustries	74	7
First Arduino project -- SOS	u/tobiasosor	64	14
My First kinematics and robotics projec...	u/Jaseemakhtar	52	9
Today i had the prestation of my agroro...	u/Cool-Foundation	49	13
Long range arduino drone plane: comms s...	u/DadGaveMeStepSis4Xms	47	19
Finally finished my IOT mood light proj...	u/mylvasur000	36	13
Update on the Arduino Gameboy I made fr...	u/fueled_by_noodles	26	4
I made a Modern LED Matrix Motorcycle /...	u/HAZI_TECH	23	14
My newest handwired macropad is actuall...	u/Joe_Scotto	17	7
Built a complete Smart Home Automation ...	u/parikshitpagare	16	2
I Made an App for My bluetooth controll...	u/potatoGOD_14	13	3
Anemometer wind speed sensor I made for...	u/toicsics	11	8
Simple LCD I2C game	u/Smart_Panda_430	11	1
Arduino-based robot that precisely thro...	u/Ski3989	11	15
Robot Hand Controlled Via Serial	u/Delicious-Power7793	8	0
Approved undergraduate research project...	u/shakemytable	7	0
Using an EMG sensor for gaming	u/iketsj	7	3
Enjoying my FM radio🥺	u/electric_potato_v1	7	1
CO2 air quality measurer (MH Z19C, wemo...	u/T0biasCZE	7	0
Spek Calendar	u/AlfaFoxtrot0	7	1
Beating Pokemon with an Arduino!	u/LjubomirMicic	6	0
TiMiNoo prototype board 01	u/tme520	6	2
I made a MIDI omnichord guitar with an ...	u/cryopotat0	5	4
Car game I made with gpt	u/CreativeAd5757	5	1
LCD display incorporated into led grow ...	u/hhcib_channel	5	2
My first Arduino project - Radio Alarm ...	u/Key-Candy-1644	4	1
Making my own robot companion! Part one...	u/jjxie1234	4	0
Stereo Digital FM Transmitter Circuit (...	u/MyVanitar	3	2
Feedback much appreciated for my IoT sm...	u/Westend1991	2	2
Arduino Spectrophotometer project	u/UnheardHealer85	2	5
Check out this cool Adafruit 64x64 RGB ...	u/Morten_Nibe	2	1
Finished grow light prototype	u/hhcib_channel	2	1
Chat with ChatGPT through Arduino IoT C...	u/beta_max_76	1	1
Motion activated Mjolnir from God of Wa...	u/TJL6012	1	0
210x WS2812b LEDs arranged as the lette...	u/SparkesCreative	1	5
DIY Electric Wheelbarrow (WORLDS BIGGES...	u/FitzDude	0	5
Buy me a coffee fountain	u/fire-marshmallow	0	12
I made an unusual beer cup holder	u/Thefedmogchallenge	0	0
Random amen breaks generator (Code avai...	u/Audiowanderer	0	0
Europe Truck simulator Brake Light Cont...	u/Prabeen1	0	0
I made a video about a universal remote...	u/aranjello	0	2

Total: 65 posts

Summary of Post types:

Flair	Count
Algorithms	2
Beginner's Project	36
ChatGPT	7
Fourth is strong in this one	1
Games	1
Hardware Help	1
Hardware Help I2S	1
Hardware Help Soldering	1
Hardware Help!	3
Hardware Help, maybe Software Help	1
Hardware/Software Help	2
Help	1
Libraries	4
Look what I found!	4
Look what I made!	65
Look what I'm going to make!	1
Mega	3
Mod's Choice!	7
Nano	4
Pipeline Diagnostics and Inspection w/ mmWave	1
Potentially Dangerous Project	2
Pro Micro	1
Project of the Month Entry	2
School Project	1
School Project (Geocaching Puzzle Box )	1
School Project Help	1
Software Help	1
Software Help (Mega/Due)	0
Software Help (Mega/Due) [Solved]	1
Software Help for Uno	1
Software Help, Arduino DUE timers	1
Solved	20
Uno	14
Wire Help	1
You choose!	1
beginner help	1
help	1
no flair	436
schematic	1

Total: 1020 posts in 2023-05

Preface

Greetings all and good tidings. I am addressing something that has probably been addressed, rehashed, debated and possibly ignored many times over. In fact, this topic has likely been done to death on this sub. So why am I writing this post at all? Well, I hope I can address the topic in a way that does not give you indigestion, and if I do cause you gastrointestinal distress from topics on embodied minds, diachronic universalism and theories on personal identity, then I apologise in advance. There have been some relatively "newish" ideas presented in the literature about FLO and I would like to explore them and discuss what they entail. I understand that this whole topic may be irrelevant to several (many) users of this subreddit, but there are users here that this topic is quite important to, and it is them that I primarily address. All in all though, my effort here would be worthwhile if someone got something out of this.

Introduction

The Future Like Ours (FLO) argument, what is it and what does it necessitate? In its simplest form, it can be written as follows:
​

• Premise 1: It is morally wrong to deprive a being of a FLO.
• Premise 2: Killing a fetus deprives it of a FLO.
• Conclusion: Therefore, killing a fetus is morally wrong.

​
This seemingly simple argument was presented by Don Marquis in 1989. In the literature, it is widely regarded as the strongest argument against the permissibility of abortion, unless you accept some other religious doctrine. The general arguments that are provided as to the strength of Don Marquis' objection to abortion are based on the grounding that it is established on a seemingly uncontroversial view of why it is wrong to kill someone. The above argument is however deceptively simple, and I believe it is worth some time in breaking it down to establish what it means exactly.
The intention of the FLO argument is not about determining a set of conditions that may occur at some time after conception that would make abortion impermissible, but rather, that it would be impermissible in general. To describe how this argument comes about, we have to establish what it is that we mean by a future like ours. Our futures, assuming we live into the future and are able to experience, are futures of experience. In order for a fetus to have a future that is like ours, the future of the fetus must too, be one of experience. This also means that our present experience, right now, is the FLO of the fetus that was once 'us'. To achieve this end, an additional requirement is generated, the very being of the fetus must be the same being as we are now in order for the FLO of the fetus to be our current experience. A concise definition is as follows, as provided by Vogelstein:
FLO Definition: X, at time t, has a FLO if and only if (1) X exists at t, and (2) X exists for some period of time after t, during which X has valuable experiences that make X’s life after t worth living, on the whole. (Where the subject of experience is X)
There is an important distinction that needs to be made here. The future like ours argument of Don Marquis is not about the potential of the fetus to experience a future, but rather, the fetus really does experience a future. This distinction is important, as without it, the argument is open to the obvious rebuttal that a potential something is not as valuable as an actual something. The FLO argument is that the fetus is the same actual something that has future experiences as we actual somethings have future experiences right now.

The Problem of Identity

The general subject of the theory of personal identity is to describe what it is that we refer to when we say "I" and other pronouns. Generally, theories of personal identity posit that it is the thing we refer to as "I" that has experience. As by the definition of FLO above, a fetus can only have a future of experience if the thing that "I" refers to is the same as the fetus: I was once a fetus. The most widely accepted theory of personal identity; the psychological theory of personal identity, corresponds to relating "I" to the psychological connections of continuity, connectedness, similarity and other related concepts. These features correspond to particular functions of the brain. The identity objection, to put it concisely, is that for a fetus to have a FLO and adhere to the definition above, it would need to exhibit psychological traits. Since the fetus has no psychology to speak of, it does not have a FLO.
For the defender of FLO not willing to concede to this point, they are presented with a controversial choice, the rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity! This theory presents a distinction between the biological organism, and what it is that we refer to when we say "I". Under this theory, after conception, the organism existed for a certain time before "we", or "I", came into being, and so the organism before this point in time had no FLO at all. This also implies that the statement, I am my organism is not exactly correct. This point may seem like a possible point of contention by supporters of FLO, but it seems to be uncontroversial to proponents of the psychological theory of personal identity: we are minds that receive stimuli from our bodies. It's this last point that has (supposedly) provided another way out for defenders of FLO, in that they do not necessarily need to reject the psychological theory of personal identity after all, or at least, a particular form of it.

The Embodied Mind

Eric Vogelstein (2016), in his paper titled: Metaphysics and the Future-Like-Ours Argument Against Abortion provided an argument as to how FLO can still survive under Jeff McMahon's view of the embodied mind account of personal identity. The embodied mind account can arguably be traced back to Friedrich Nietzsche's classic Thus Spoke Zarathustra (one of my favourites!). Friedrich Nietzche wrote:
But greater is that in which you do not wish to believe – our body with its great intelligence; it does not say ‘I’, but does ‘I’. What the sense feels, what the spirit knows, never has its end in itself. But sense and spirit would persuade you that they are the end of all things: that is how vain they are. Instruments and toys are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the self. The self also seeks with the eyes of the senses, it also listens with the ears of the spirit. Always the self listens and seeks; it compares, overpowers, conquers, and destroys. It rules, and is also the ruler of the ‘I’. Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage – it is called the subconscious self; it dwells in your body, it is your body*.*
Never can I hope to achieve the level and style of writing of one such as Nietzsche! It is important to point out the very different context that surrounds Nietzsche's writings here. Nietzsche is describing the reluctance of Europeans to fully relinquish concepts of the past after the death of God! One such concept is the idea of the will, more importantly the free will endowed with inherent knowledge of morality. The free will is the end in itself with respect to the spirt of experience. Nietzsche argues to abolish this idea entirely and proclaims that the master behind "I" is our very bodies. The will is therefore no longer free, and no more endowed with knowledge of moral value than the pangs of hunger from the gut, or the... throes of passion from the groin...
In this sense, provided by Nietzsche, a description of the embodied mind account can be presented. The embodied mind is not distinct from the body but integrated within and the subject of the stimuli generated by our bodies. Our thoughts are not free but can be traced back to physiological conditions in the body. Even thoughts seemingly inspired by external stimuli are still thoughts subjugated to the master, the body! External stimulus is nothing more than the reception of outside events by our senses, and so the body is still the real author of all experience. I believe in this description, there is no point delineating the brain from the body, the brain is still your body, and your mind is integrated in your brain, that is, your body. I believe that Friedrich Nietzsche's account of an 'embodied mind' is not the same as the one argued by Jeff McMahon, as Nietzsche's take seems to be purely feed forward (and not particularly helpful to FLO), but nonetheless it still looks like "an" embodied mind account, and possibly one of, if not the earliest such account there is.
Eric Vogelstein has argued that the organism can experience by virtue of one of its parts. The brain is a part of the organism, and so the organism experiences by virtue of having a brain. Vogelstein makes use of Jeff McMahon's example of a car horn. When the horn of a car makes a noise, it does not seem controversial to say that the car made a noise. Similarly, when the brain has an experience, it should be uncontroversial to say that the organism too has an experience. Vogelstein also presents a counter to the argument that the mind itself is the subject of experience and not the brain, through the words of Eric Olson (2003):
The reason for [believing that you think but your animal or organism does not] can only be that the animal can’t think…And if that animal can’t think…then no human animal can. And if no human animal can think, no animal of any sort could….The claim, then, is that animals, including human animals, are no more intelligent or sentient than trees…This is rather hard to believe. Anyone who denies that animals can think…needs to explain why. They can’t. What stops a typical human animal from using its brain to think? Isn’t that what that organ is for?
A personal objection of mine to Olson here (this is not necessary for the argument I build later, and so I present it here) is that thinking, and experience are not the same things. We have the content of experience of thinking, and it is possible that with lesions on particular parts of our brains, our subjective experience persists but our ability to think rationally is impeded. I do not think it makes any sense to replace the word thinking with experience in the quote from Olson, as whether or not an animal or organism can experience is the very thing Olson is trying to conclude here. For example, machine learning techniques can be thought of a process of thinking, but AI has no experience to speak of, yet! Is there really any significant different in the way we think from the methods applied in machine learning? This is however a digression.
In summary here, Eric Vogelstein has presented an argument as to how an organism itself can experience. This means that the fetus, before developing the constitutive part necessary for experience (the brain) can still experience by virtue of eventually having a brain. If the organism itself can experience, and that we, or "I" are organisms, and that the fetus is the same organism, then the fetus does have a FLO - that is, if you accept all of the required premises!

Reductio ad Absurdum, a Problem for Diachronic Universalism

There is yet another issue that arises from premise one of FLO that I would like to address. Premise one states that it is immoral to deprive a being of its FLO. The reductio of premise one would be that it is immoral to deprive a sperm and an ovum of its FLO through either contraception or abstinence. Don Marquis has responded to such a criticism and has argued that contraception does not deprive a being of a FLO. Eric Vogelstein (2016) has however acknowledged that in order for this claim to succeed, yet another controversial metaphysical stance needs to be adopted - the rejection of diachronic universalism.
In Don Marquis response to the reductio critique, he outlines possible candidates for harm: (1) the sperm (and not the ovum) (2) the ovum (and not the sperm) (3) both the sperm and the ovum (4) the mereological fusion of the sperm and the ovum. Don Marquis argues that options (1) and (2) are both unlikely, as there is no reason to grant either of these candidates a privileged status as being the being with a FLO. Marquis argues that (3) is also unlikely as too many futures are lost, a problem of too many thinkers. Eric Vogelstein however dismisses this argument as both the sperm and the ovum can share the same future. The argument from Marquis that Vogelstein gives greater credit to is that the fusion of the sperm and the ovum does not preserve the existence of the things that have combined. Vogelstein acknowledges however that this argument too can be tricky on a four dimensionalist view of space and time. In such a view, it is not controversial to accept singular identities in a transitive temporal form. In the four dimensionalist view, all of the future, and all of the past exist and stretch out from our current present point in time. When tracing the organism through a four-dimensional space-time, the sperm and the ovum fuse to generate the zygote, it can be said that the sperm, or the ovum are temporal transients leading to the zygote, though it is not necessarily true that both the sperm and the ovum are temporal transients together. This is where a mereological dispute arises, and the success of the FLO argument depends on its resolution.
Diachronic universalism posits that for every set of objects that exists, there also exists an object with the members of the set as it parts. Additionally, the composition of an object comprised of members of a set can occur over time. The example that Vogelstein provides is that there is an object that is composed of both George Washington and Fenway Park, that is, an object that was George Washington and later Fenway Park. Similarly, under diachronic universalism, if there was once a sperm-ovum mereological fusion, and later, the human organism compromised of the components of the set of the sperm and the ovum; then contraception and abstinence would indeed deprive something of a FLO by premise one and would be morally wrong. If diachronic universalism is true, the defender of the FLO argument has a choice. The choice is to either accept that contraception and abstinence are as morally wrong as abortion, or accept that contraception and abstinence are not morally wrong, and so it is not immoral to deprive a fetus of its FLO. The alternative of this is to reject diachronic universalism.
The problem is that diachronic universalism has many strengths and many supporters. For example, at what point does a scattered object stop being a single object, but scattered objects? If one such component of a Macro sized object was to move by a nanometre, would it stop being an object composed of its parts? If it can move by a nanometre, why not 10 nanometres, or even a metre? There are other arguments for diachronic universalism associated with the functionality of the object for instance. The main point here is, and a point that Vogelstein acknowledges, is that success of FLO does indeed require the rejection of diachronic universalism, and this is itself a controversial stance to take. It is controversial, as for an argument to rely on an already contested premise, the argument itself is weakened.

Does the Embodied Mind Account Really Save FLO from the Identity Problem?

In 2018, Skott Brill provided, what I believe to be, a forceful rebuttal to Vogelstein's argument that the embodied mind account means defenders of FLO do not need to take the controversial stance of rejecting the psychological theory of personal identity. Skott Brill presented his arguments in a paper titled: the Identity Objection to the Future Like Ours Argument. In this paper, the embodied mind account of the psychological theory of personal identity is presented by an analogy to an orange fruit tree. The main reason for this analogy is in response to those that do make the controversial rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity in that they argue it resembles a cartesian dualism. Skott Brill demonstrates that there are dualisms, and then there are dualisms, and they can be completely uncontroversial. If we are to take a whip of a fruit tree, it slowly develops and grows branches and starts to produce fruit. The fruit may ripen, and would be juicy, sweet and orange in colour. Eventually the fruit will drop off, and what used to a whip, and now the tree will continue beyond the fruit.
In this analogy, we do not say that the tree is sweet and juicy because it produced ripened oranges. The tree grew a new entity by producing fruit, and the properties of juiciness, sweetness and orangeness are properties of the fruit and not the tree. The tree itself can exist before and after the arrival and demise of the fruit. Similarly, the human organism, as a fetus, can grow a new entity, the brain, which has distinct properties on its own like the fruit, consciousness. The organism can precede the development of consciousness, and just like the tree, in some cases, survive beyond the loss of consciousness. There is nothing particularly controversial here that necessitates an objection based on cartesian dualism.
Skott Brill continues further with a reference to the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a mistake that we make when we infer that something has an attribute or property based on the fact that one of its parts has a particular property. The simple example that is provided is to make an inference that a car is light in weight because one of its parts is light in weight. Sometimes we are justified in this inference, where for example if one of the parts of the car is heavy, we are justified in saying the car is heavy. Skott Brill does not press this matter further, as he does not need to. A concession is made, and the embodied mind account is taken to be true so that it is assumed Vogelstein has not made a fallacy of composition.
Skott Brill points out an important point that Vogelstein has completely overlooked, that it is possible to have experiences in the way that we have experiences, and it is also possible to have experiences in a way that we do not have them. The beings that we identify as when we say "I" have experiences directly, whereas the organism has experiences derivatively. Skott Brill makes use of Jeff McMahon here to illustrate this point, which is slightly ironic in that it was McMahon's version of the embodied mind that Vogelstein has employed in his own defence of FLO:
My organism is conscious [and has experiences] only in a derivative sense, only by virtue of having a conscious [experiencing] part. Similarly, when I blow the horn of my car, the car makes a noise only in the sense that one of its parts makes a noise. There is only one noise; and there is a clear sense in which there is only one noisemaker: the horn. But we attribute the making of the noise not just to the horn but also, in a de rivative way, to the larger whole that contains it. It is clear … that the car is not some additional occult presence that mysteriously joins the horn in producing the honking noise. Nor is the organism as a whole involved in the experience of consciousness except by containing that which is conscious.
Even if the embodied mind account is taken as correct, the experience of the organism is a derivative experience and is different from the direct experience that we have. This means that the non-sentient fetus does not have a future like ours in that it experiences derivatively and not directly. There is no basis that has been established anywhere, by Marquis or by Vogelstein that the transfer of experience from direct to derivative occurs without loss, and so is a highly dubious claim to make. This is not the type of experience that Marquis is referring to in premise one of FLO. The reason it is wrong to kill us is that it deprives us of a future of experience that is an experience that we have directly. This is exactly the kind of experience that the non-sentient fetus does not have, and so the fetus does not have a future like ours at all. Under the psychological theory of personal identity, the FLO argument demonstrates that it is morally permissible to abort a fetus, as it does not have the very thing that is considered to be of value in premise one, a future like ours!

Reductio ad Absurdum Once Again! The Ovum as the Primary Candidate for Harm

I am going to explore the reductio problem of FLO a little further as I believe, even if rejecting diachronic universalism, a case can be made for the ovum as a candidate for harm, and more so, the candidate for harm. Quite recently, in 2023, Tomer Jordi Chaffer published a paper titled: Future‐like ours as a metaphysical reductio ad absurdum argument of personal identity. In this paper, it is argued that the ovum is the non-arbitrary candidate for harm for three reasons:
(1) The ovum exclusively passes down mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to offspring.
(2) The ovum can turn on paternal gene expression through histone restructuring.
(3) The ovum can undergo parthenogenesis.
If we refer back to the previous reductio section, the first two possible candidates for harm were identified as: (1) the sperm (and not the ovum) (2) the ovum (and not the sperm). Don Marquis argued that these two candidates were unlikely, as neither could be considered non-arbitrarily privileged over the other. It is this point that is contentious.
Chaffer refers to recent scientific findings from mitochondrial epigenetics corresponding to the heritable changes in gene expression of the mtDNA genome. These recent findings show increasing evidence that mitochondrial epigenetic regulators, such as mtDNA-encoded non-coded RNA (ncRNA) can translocate to the nucleus to regulate the expression of nuclear DNA (nDNA) encoded genes, which are the genes that affect identity. This mechanism can only be passed down from the mother, where sperm mitochondria are severely degraded. This establishes the ovum as having a non-arbitrary privileged position in that it has a greater role in identity formation than a sperm, corresponding to point (1) above.
There is a further point of difference between the nDNA carried by the sperm and the ovum. The nDNA carried in the head of a sperm is compacted to avoid damage as the sperm travels. In this compaction, histones are replaced with other nuclear proteins. Histones are complex proteins that regulate the gene expression and provide structural support to chromosomes. The ovum however does possess all of the necessary histones associated with gene expression and chromosome structure, but more than just this. The ovum also provides the sperm with the necessary materials, such as tripeptide antioxidant glutathione, so that the nDNA of the sperm can decondense and restructure. On this basis, epigenetically, the ovum provides the mechanisms necessary to regulate a sperms contribution to life, and so can be considered as the foundation for a new life. This corresponds to point (2) above and provides another case for the non-arbitrary privileged status of the ovum over the sperm.
A third differentiating aspect of the ovum from the sperm is that the ovum demonstrates a self-directing mechanism. The ovum has the capacity to initiate and activate embryo development without fertilization: parthenogenesis. Human parthenotes are not viable in nature, but the significance is that only the ovum can initiate this process and not the sperm, leading to yet another argument for the non-arbitrary privileged position of the ovum over the sperm, corresponding to point (3) above. If a counter to this is argued on the non-viable nature of the parthenote, that is exactly the point. The non-viable parthenote is robbed of a future by abstinence and contraception in that fertilisation did not occur before parthenogenesis was initiated.
The arguments presented above I believe provide a reasonably strong case that the ovum can be considered as a foundational structure of a new life, where a sperm merely deposits the necessary material for the foundation to become a fetus. There is a stronger line of continuity between the ovum and the zygote than there is between the zygote and the sperm. Additionally, the magnitude of the change between the ovum and the zygote is decidedly less than the magnitude of the change between the zygote and the child. I believe this is more than sufficient to argue that the ovum is a non-arbitrary candidate for harm, and possibly more than just this, the candidate for harm; the same candidate as the zygote!

Summary

I believe that the identity objection to FLO on the grounds of the psychological theory of personal identity carries significant force. Even if the embodied mind account is granted to be true, our organism, at best, can be considered to have a derivative experience only, and so the non-sentient fetus does not have a future like ours at all. On the psychological theory of personal identity, Don Marquis' argument does more to demonstrate why abortion is morally permissable rather than the reverse, because the fetus does not have the very thing which is valued, a future like ours.
The defenders of FLO are therefore faced with a controversial metaphysical stance, the rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity. Rejecting this however is not the end of the road, as yet another controversial metaphysical stance is necessary, the rejection of diachronic universalism. With the rejection of diachronic universalism, the reductio problem is still unresolved on the basis of the biology of the ovum: a strong case can be made for the ovum as a non-arbitrary candidate for harm. The defender of FLO then has yet another controversial stance to take, that it is morally impermissible to use contraceptives or abstain from sex!
Don Marquis arguments for FLO are considered to be the best secular argument as to why abortion is morally wrong, but this says nothing about the strength of the argument itself. As described above, if an argument requires two or three contested and controversial stances taken a priori, the argument itself is on more than perilous ground. If this really is the strongest case for the anti abortion argument, the anti-abortion movement itself is on extremely perilous ground! In short however, I believe FLO does achieve something quite valuable, it demonstrates that abortion is not morally wrong at all!
OK, here we are at the end... finally. That was a long post wasn't it. How is your intestinal tract by the way? Excellent! If you have made it this far, then you have my thanks, and I hope you got something out of this.
​
Thank you for your time and effort in getting through this.
​
Perse

Summary:
I decided to carry my 1 year old cat to the vet's office in my car's trunk, he ran away somewhere next to the office and I can't find him anymore.
I will explain what happened here in a very detailed form. Perhaps these details can help me get better advice. Prerequisites:
My male cat is 1 years old and not neutered. He is domestic short hair cat and was born to my female cat. I also keep one of his brothers from the same litter.
We live in suburban town in Azerbaijan. We have a house with private property like all of our neighbors. We have big open terrace and that's where we keep our cats. So we don't allow them inside of our house. Our cats live in terrace and they are free to walk wherever they want . It is common in suburban places to keep cats like this in my country.
Before this my cat twice left the house in spring (for 2 days and 3 days). I was worried a little but knew he will be back, and he was back.
How I lost him:
Last week my cat had swollen cheek. He was sleeping for most of the day and was very passive. I've decided to take him to the vet office about 4-5 kms from home.
None of my cats have ever left the house in a car, so I don't even have a pet carrier. I wanted to put him in a cardboard box, but he left that box before I 've put him in the car. I decided put him in the trunk of my sedan. Now I realize that it was extremely stupid idea :( . Trunks are dark, noisy and make cats very stressful and frightened.
During the ride my cat was meowing most of the time, but I thought it is only 5 minutes ride. I parked only few meters from vet's office entrance. Office was just next to a very noisy road. When I opened trunk my cat was sitting in the corner. I knew he might try to run but vet's office was close and I decided to take him there with my hands.
As soon as I grabbed him he tried to escape and I tried to hold him. Exactly at office entrance he scratched my hands and escaped. He ran to my car and stayed under my car for a few seconds. Since road was busy and noisy he decided to run away to someone's yard. I chased him, he went to some bush and hid there. But unfortunately there was a female cat with kittens who attacked him (or was just curious). Then my cat left the bush, climbed to the tree and jumped to another yard. We have high stone fences between properties in my country. I couldn't see him and quickly jumped over fence but couldn't see him anymore. I looked at all corners, trees, bushes, hidden places in the 2nd yard but couldn't notice him. Then I immediately ran to the 3rd neighboring yard and made some unsuccessful search. I searched these 3 yards one more time. I couldn't search more since it was all private properties there.
So I returned about 2 hours later the same day and searched these 3 yards one more time. 4th neighbor didn't allow to search his property. That's all that happened on Thursday, the day I last saw him.
How I tried to find him later:

• Since during daytime cats usually sleep and it is quite noisy I decided to search by nights. Made search for 2-3 hours between 3-6 am for the last two nights. I was just walking on the road close to the yards I lost him and calling his name. Entering properties without permit during night is illegal of course. I usually walk for 10-15 meters, call his name for a few minutes and continue doing it. For now I was able only to attract some stray/neighbor cats. I also bring wet food that my cats eat with me in a small open container.
• This night I brought his brother in a carrier (should've bought it before :(). He was meowing constantly. I hoped my lost cat could hear him and find us. I walked with him in a carrier for about 30 minutes. No success.
• I made a sponsored facebook/instagram post on Friday which has all necessary information (pics/phone numbe description) and targets area in 1 mile radius to the place I lost him. It has ~20 reactions, ~20 comments for 3 days.
• We have only few facebook/instagram groups and pages here. I reached them but could create only one post in one of them.
• Made some A4 flyers with picture of my cat, my phone number and reward promise. Will glue them to the walls and columns in the close area today.

Some specifics of my country and town that make search harder:

• We don't have any animal shelters here
• People usually don't care much about cats. They think it is crazy trying to find a simple domestic cat. Especially for almost 30 years old man.
• All private properties have high stone fences from all 4 sides and high steel doors. You can only see top of the trees in property and second flooroof.
• Most of the people don't allow to enter their property.

Any ideas what else should I do? I now it is my fault and I can't eat, sleep, work for the last ~70 hours. Feeling so terrible right now. Will appreciate any advice. Sorry for my English, I am not a native speaker.

Off Payroll Working (Anti-Avoidance) Bill

An Act to make provision for further anti-avoidance measures in relation to Off Payroll Working and the establishment of employee rights where income is deemed employment income.
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
Section 1: Definitions
(1) “Off Payroll Working legislation” refers to successive previous laws and regulations related to the determination on whether a worker should be treated as an employee or self-employed for tax purposes when paid through an intermediary.
(2) “IR35 legislation” refers to the successive previous laws and regulations on off payroll working above, directed at small privately owned businesses.
(3) “Client” refers to any corporate entity which pays for services provided by an intermediary.
(4) “Intermediary” refers to any corporate entity established to provide the services of individuals to a client.
(5) “Individual” refers to the person providing services to a client while remunerated through an intermediary
(6) “Deemed employment income” is any income liable for income tax and national insurance under the terms set out in Section 5.
Section 2: Combination of Off Payroll Working and IR35 rules
(1) From the enactment of this Bill, interpretation of all IR35 legislation will be considered the same as Off Payroll Working legislation, and the treatment between small private businesses and other businesses will be the same.
(2) In all cases, the client will now be responsible for determining the employment status of the worker.
Section 3: Application of Off Payroll Working Rules
(1) Off Payroll Working Rules will be considered when:

a. An individual has more than 5% ownership of an intermediary entity, and/or;
b. Services given to a client by an intermediary equate to more than 5% of the individual’s total taxable earnings.

Section 4: Assessment of Employee or Self-employed for tax purposes
(1) In each financial year, the client must make an assessment on whether an individual should be taxed as an employee or self-employed.
(2) If at least 5 of the following conditions apply, the individual shall be classified as an employee for tax purposes and “deemed employment income” should be calculated and taxed for Income Tax and National Insurance by both the client (in the first instance) and by the individual (true up/down in their annual self assessment):

a. Degree of control - in the course of the services, is the client mostly responsible for establishing the hours of the service or the time of day or date that the work should be delivered?
b. Mutuality of obligations - is the client obliged under the terms of the contract to give regular work and pay for it, and is the individual responsible for delivering that work?
c. Correction of work - is the client responsible, ahead of the intermediary or individual, either contractually or implicitly, for the quality of the services delivered by the individual?
d. Financial risk - are the financial risks related to the contract primarily with the client instead of the intermediary/individual?
e. Provision of own equipment - is the majority of the equipment used (buildings, plant and machinery, technology, sundries etc.) in the service provided by the client?
f. Disciplinary - is the individual contractually obliged to the same or greater behaviour and disciplinary terms as an employee of the client, or where not applicable, an employee of an equivalent business?
g. Exclusivity - does the contract result in substantial terms of exclusivity for a period greater than 3 months?
h. Inclusion in business - is the individual practically included in the client business in the context of internal meetings and communications?
i. Alternative worker - can an alternative individual replace the individual without substantial disruption or public statement?
j. Public opinion test - would a reasonable member of the public expect that the individual is an employee of the client?

(3) HMRC will challenge the judgements made for each consideration above if they appear to be unreasonable in a tax tribunal.
Section 5: Provision of employment benefits for deemed employment income earners
(1) Where an assessment is made that an individuals’ earnings are deemed employment income, the individual retains the right to statutory employment benefits and statutory pension terms as other employees.
Section 6: Repeals
(1) The Off Payroll Working (IR35 clarification) Act 2018 is hereby repealed.
Section 7: Commencement, Short Title and Extent
(1) This Act will come into force on the 6 April 2024
(2) This Act will extend to the entirety of the United Kingdom.
(3) This Act shall be cited as the Off Payroll Working (Anti-avoidance) Act 2023
This Bill was submitted by His Grace Sir Rea-wakey KCT KT KD KCMG KBE MVO FRS, Duke of Dorset, Secretary of State for the Home Department, on behalf of His Majesty’s 33rd Government.
Opening Speech:
Deputy Speaker,
I now present the final piece of anti-avoidance legislation to the House. Many years ago, alongside my good friend bnzss, I co-wrote a piece of legislation designed to tackle the known tax avoidance loophole through off-payroll working. While the legislation has been somewhat useful at tackling the loophole, recent cases such as those of Gary Lineker and Lorraine Kelly have proven that the legislation simply does not go far enough. Therefore I decided to rip it up and start again.
This legislation goes much further than the previous Bill - firstly combining both the IR35 rules for small businesses and the off-payroll working rules that currently apply to larger businesses, ensuring consistency between both sets of rules. Secondly, the Bill establishes a clearer set of criteria and a passable threshold in which earnings made through a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 or it’s predecessor or successor acts or a limited partnership should be recognised as employment income, thereby incurring income tax and National Insurance. Finally, this Bill provides further clarity as to the status of an individual when their income is deemed to be employment income, and extends the rights of employees to these workers including but not limited to the provision of statutory employment benefits and rights under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and statutory pension regulations.
The Government will relentlessly pursue those who wish to use technicalities in our regulations to avoid paying higher rates of tax and companies that wish to avoid conferring statutory benefits to those who are, for all intents and purposes, employees.
In combination with the other two pieces of anti-avoidance legislation I will be/have submitted to the House, these measures are collectively expected to raise £3.4 billion. This proposed revenue generation and these Bills were raised at Her Majesty’s Budget Committee and unopposed. My thanks go to my friend the Right Honourable Phonexia2 for their assistance in costing.
I urge the House to rally behind this Bill.
(M: These costings are calculated as 40% of the tax gap
for “Evasion” and “Non-payment”, given the difficulty of calculating the actual revenue generated from these measures).
This division will end at 10pm on Wednesday 7th June 2023.

I’ve been listening to the audiobooks, all the way through “Rise of the King” so far. At the end of every. single. book. some guy from Audible jumps in and says “This book is over, but the story continues” then invites you to hear a preview from the next book in the Legend of “Drizzit” series.
It was particularly jarring and inappropriate at the end of “The Last Threshold” when Victor Bevine had just slowly, quietly, emotionally read the final scene and the listener is probably holding back tears… and then in jumps Audible-guy sounding like an over-caffeinated used car salesman, ready to mispronounce the main character’s name again.
Does this continue all the way to the newest books, or does the guy from Audible finally learn to pronounce “Drizzt” at some point?

Sorry for the bad pictures but I need a bit of advice. I’ve had this bump since I snagged it pretty good about a week after I got it, which was a month ago. She used an 18g titanium flatback. I’ve been fighting with this for a while, I only clean 2-3 times a day with neilmed and let it rinse under warm water when I shower. But whenever I wake up my bump is super angry. It’ll have crust, only in the morning. When I clean it it’s usually fine for the rest of the day, doesn’t look bad just has the bump. but today my lump was extra bumpy and my stud kinda got lost in it.
Since it’s been a month, should I look at downsizing? Do y’all think a shorter bar + bigger stud would help the irritation? Sometimes The Lump bleeds though, will it be okay if I got it changed? By a professional, of course.

I was just thinking about which sb ending is canon when I noticed something. We all know Scott isn't one to accidentally filter something in via colors and lore etc. and I noticed something weird. When anyone in the franchise is seen as "free", they always have some indicator of purple. You see if you look at the only 3-star ending of SB. It shows glam rock Freddy, Gregory, and presumably Vanessa. All of them are purple. Gregory and Vanessa are wearing purple shirts and, if micheal=glam Freddy is true, that means he inside is "purple".Now, we know in this ending Vanessa is free from Glitchtrap and that means she is wearing the purple as a little note of how she is free. We know Michael is free because he is no longer constricted to the pizzaplex, he may rest his soul. This means that Gregory must also be free. I am considering that the princess quest can free both of them, as it frees the vengeful spirit which I guess "attacks?" the glitch trap virus. Now, the only way that this can be true is if, in fact, the burn trap ending is canon. This means none of the three are free, meaning that Gregory could be lured or trapped using the glitch trap virus and then told to make a message to Cassey, therefore making a trap. To follow on with the theory of color, we see that at every point where William is free, he is purple. The time before his son dies he is free. When he is willfully committing the missing children's incident he is free, it is him inflicting these wounds, not his drunkenness. This leads me to the times he isn't free. He isn't free after the night of Charlie's death. He is bound by drunkenness and anger. That is why he is yellow. That isn't him free. As a further fact, when he is spring locked he is forever not free, hence why he is stuck in something the opposite color of freedom in this universe-yellow.The lists of parallels go on in this color theory! Circus baby's eyes used to be blue. Then along came Elizabeth. Elizabeth became trapped and died in circus baby, adding the yellow of no freedom. And, if anyone is a theorist they should know logically what yellow+blue is. Hence why baby has green eyes. Now you may think this is just a theory that is valid, yes (or no-depending on whether unlike me you still have your sanity in one place) but extremely unimportant. Well, that brings me to the second part of the theory. I think that all the other endings are there to show what happens regardless of which ending is canon. They all show factual things that happen. Just like FNAF 3. The good ending is canon-yes. But the bad ending is there to show what happens regardless. William is still spring locked and the bad ending shows this, regardless of it not being the canon of the two endings. Now let's look at the other endings and their significance. The bad ending shows that more murders will happen. The next ending shows that as long as Freddy is in the pizzaplex, Vanny will be out to get him into ruin. It shows what will happen to Freddy so that in ruin he is not his former self. The next ending is confusing, and all I can say is that it may possibly strengthen the theory from a LOOOOONGGGGG time ago, the cult of Glitchtrap, the theory suggesting that Vanessa isn't the only follower of Glitchtrap. This may mean that even though the name Vanny is contributed to Vanessa, it may just be a title for anyone who puts on the mask and complies with Glitchtrap, which would explain why Vanessa is still alive after definitely being dead. The good ending is just there to be there at least in my understanding. That leaves us with the two main endings. The burn trap ending shows us something significant. Gregory isn't wearing purple! This means that he could still be under glitchtrap's control, and therefore ruin can take place, whereas the 3-star ending is just a show that purple is a show of freedom in this world. And that is why I call this, long, painful and half-baked theory:
​
FNAF- A Theory Of Color
​
Honestly, I want to see what everyone thinks because this was just something that popped up in my head.

The Airbus A300 is a wide-body airliner developed and manufactured by Airbus. In September 1967, aircraft manufacturers in the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a large airliner. West Germany and France reached an agreement on 29 May 1969 after the British withdrew from the project on 10 April 1969. European collaborative aerospace manufacturer Airbus Industrie was formally created on 18 December 1970 to develop and produce it. The prototype first flew on 28 October 1972.
The first twin-engine widebody airliner, the A300 typically seats 247 passengers in two classes over a range of 5,375 to 7,500 km (2,900 to 4,050 nmi). Initial variants are powered by General Electric CF6-50 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D turbofans and have a three-crew flight deck. The improved A300-600 has a two-crew cockpit and updated CF6-80C2 or PW4000 engines; it made its first flight on 8 July 1983 and entered service later that year. The A300 is the basis of the smaller A310 (first flown in 1982) and was adapted in a freighter version. Its cross section was retained for the larger four-engined A340 (1991) and the larger twin-engined A330 (1992). It is also the basis for the oversize Beluga transport (1994).
Launch customer Air France introduced the type on 23 May 1974. After limited demand initially, sales took off as the type was proven in early service, beginning three decades of steady orders. It has a similar capacity to the Boeing 767-300, introduced in 1986, but lacked the 767-300ER range. During the 1990s, the A300 became popular with cargo aircraft operators, as both passenger airliner conversions and as original builds. Production ceased in July 2007 after 561 deliveries. As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service.
Origins:
During the 1960s, European aircraft manufacturers such as Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation, based in the UK, and Sud Aviation of France, had ambitions to build a new 200-seat airliner for the growing civil aviation market. While studies were performed and considered, such as a stretched twin-engine variant of the Hawker Siddeley Trident and an expanded development of the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) One-Eleven, designated the BAC Two-Eleven, it was recognized that if each of the European manufacturers were to launch similar aircraft into the market at the same time, neither would achieve sales volume needed to make them viable.[2] In 1965, a British government study, known as the Plowden Report, had found British aircraft production costs to be between 10% and 20% higher than American counterparts due to shorter production runs, which was in part due to the fractured European market. To overcome this factor, the report recommended the pursuit of multinational collaborative projects between the region's leading aircraft manufacturers.[3]: 49 [4][5]: 2–13
European manufacturers were keen to explore prospective programs; the proposed 260-seat wide-body HBN 100 between Hawker Siddeley, Nord Aviation, and Breguet Aviation being one such example.[2][6]: 37–38 National governments were also keen to support such efforts amid a belief that American manufacturers could dominate the European Economic Community;[7] in particular, Germany had ambitions for a multinational airliner project to invigorate its aircraft industry, which had declined considerably following the Second World War.[3]: 49–50 During the mid-1960s, both Air France and American Airlines had expressed interest in a short-haul twin-engine wide-body aircraft, indicating a market demand for such an aircraft to be produced.[3][8] In July 1967, during a high-profile meeting between French, German, and British ministers, an agreement was made for greater cooperation between European nations in the field of aviation technology, and "for the joint development and production of an airbus".[2][9]: 34 The word airbus at this point was a generic aviation term for a larger commercial aircraft, and was considered acceptable in multiple languages, including French.[9]: 34
Shortly after the July 1967 meeting, French engineer Roger Béteille was appointed as the technical director of what would become the A300 program, while Henri Ziegler, chief operating office of Sud Aviation, was appointed as the general manager of the organization and German politician Franz Josef Strauss became the chairman of the supervisory board.[2] Béteille drew up an initial work share plan for the project, under which French firms would produce the aircraft's cockpit, the control systems, and lower-center portion of the fuselage, Hawker Siddeley would manufacture the wings, while German companies would produce the forward, rear and upper part of the center fuselage sections. Addition work included moving elements of the wings being produced in the Netherlands, and Spain producing the horizontal tail plane.[2][6]: 38
An early design goal for the A300 that Béteille had stressed the importance of was the incorporation of a high level of technology, which would serve as a decisive advantage over prospective competitors. As such, the A300 would feature the first use of composite materials of any passenger aircraft, the leading and trailing edges of the tail fin being composed of glass fibre reinforced plastic.[5]: 2–16 [10] Béteille opted for English as the working language for the developing aircraft, as well against using Metric instrumentation and measurements, as most airlines already had US-built aircraft.[10] These decisions were partially influenced by feedback from various airlines, such as Air France and Lufthansa, as an emphasis had been placed on determining the specifics of what kind of aircraft that potential operators were seeking. According to Airbus, this cultural approach to market research had been crucial to the company's long-term success.[10]
Workshare and redefinition:
On 26 September 1967, the British, French, and West German governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding to start development of the 300-seat Airbus A300.[6]: 38 [11]: 43 [12]: 57 At this point, the A300 was only the second major joint aircraft programme in Europe, the first being the Anglo-French Concorde.[9] Under the terms of the memorandum, Britain and France were each to receive a 37.5 per cent work share on the project, while Germany received a 25 per cent share. Sud Aviation was recognized as the lead company for A300, with Hawker Siddeley being selected as the British partner company.[2] At the time, the news of the announcement had been clouded by the British Government's support for the Airbus, which coincided with its refusal to back BAC's proposed competitor, the BAC 2–11, despite a preference for the latter expressed by British European Airways (BEA).[9]: 34 Another parameter was the requirement for a new engine to be developed by Rolls-Royce to power the proposed airliner; a derivative of the in-development Rolls-Royce RB211, the triple-spool RB207, capable of producing of 47,500 lbf (211 kN).[13] The program cost was US$4.6 billion (in 1993 Dollars).[14]
​
In December 1968, the French and British partner companies (Sud Aviation and Hawker Siddeley) proposed a revised configuration, the 250-seat Airbus A250. It had been feared that the original 300-seat proposal was too large for the market, thus it had been scaled down to produce the A250.[5]: 2–14 [8][15] The dimensional changes involved in the shrink reduced the length of the fuselage by 5.62 metres (18.4 ft) and the diameter by 0.8 metres (31 in), reducing the overall weight by 25 tonnes (55,000 lb).[10][16]: 16 For increased flexibility, the cabin floor was raised so that standard LD3 freight containers could be accommodated side-by-side, allowing more cargo to be carried. Refinements made by Hawker Siddeley to the wing's design provided for greater lift and overall performance; this gave the aircraft the ability to climb faster and attain a level cruising altitude sooner than any other passenger aircraft.[10] It was later renamed the A300B.[9]: 34 [15]
Perhaps the most significant change of the A300B was that it would not require new engines to be developed, being of a suitable size to be powered by Rolls-Royce's RB211, or alternatively the American Pratt & Whitney JT9D and General Electric CF6 powerplants; this switch was recognized as considerably reducing the project's development costs.[11]: 45 [15][16]: 16–17 To attract potential customers in the US market, it was decided that General Electric CF6-50 engines would power the A300 in place of the British RB207; these engines would be produced in co-operation with French firm Snecma.[8][10] By this time, Rolls-Royce had been concentrating their efforts upon developing their RB211 turbofan engine instead and progress on the RB207's development had been slow for some time, the firm having suffered due to funding limitations, both of which had been factors in the engine switch decision.[5]: 2–13 [15][16]: 17–18
On 10 April 1969, a few months after the decision to drop the RB207 had been announced, the British government announced that they would withdraw from the Airbus venture.[6]: 38–39 [15] In response, West Germany proposed to France that they would be willing to contribute up to 50% of the project's costs if France was prepared to do the same.[15] Additionally, the managing director of Hawker Siddeley, Sir Arnold Alexander Hall, decided that his company would remain in the project as a favoured sub-contractor, developing and manufacturing the wings for the A300, which would later become pivotal in later versions' impressive performance from short domestic to long intercontinental flights.[5]: 2–13 [9]: 34 [16]: 18 Hawker Siddeley spent £35 million of its own funds, along with a further £35 million loan from the West German government, on the machine tooling to design and produce the wings.[6]: 39 [15]
Programme launch:
On 29 May 1969, during the Paris Air Show, French transport minister Jean Chamant and German economics minister Karl Schiller signed an agreement officially launching the Airbus A300, the world's first twin-engine widebody airliner.[2] The intention of the project was to produce an aircraft that was smaller, lighter, and more economical than its three-engine American rivals, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.[10] In order to meet Air France's demands for an aircraft larger than 250-seat A300B, it was decided to stretch the fuselage to create a new variant, designated as the A300B2, which would be offered alongside the original 250-seat A300B, henceforth referred to as the A300B1. On 3 September 1970, Air France signed a letter of intent for six A300s, marking the first order to be won for the new airliner.[6]: 39 [10][16]: 21
In the aftermath of the Paris Air Show agreement, it was decided that, in order to provide effective management of responsibilities, a Groupement d'intérêt économique would be established, allowing the various partners to work together on the project while remaining separate business entities.[2] On 18 December 1970, Airbus Industrie was formally established following an agreement between Aérospatiale (the newly merged Sud Aviation and Nord Aviation) of France and the antecedents to Deutsche Aerospace of Germany, each receiving a 50 per cent stake in the newly formed company.[3]: 50 [6]: 39 [10] In 1971, the consortium was joined by a third full partner, the Spanish firm CASA, who received a 4.2 per cent stake, the other two members reducing their stakes to 47.9 per cent each.[10][16]: 20 In 1979, Britain joined the Airbus consortium via British Aerospace, which Hawker Siddeley had merged into, which acquired a 20 per cent stake in Airbus Industrie with France and Germany each reducing their stakes to 37.9 per cent.[3]: 53 [5]: 2–14 [6]: 39
Prototype and flight testing:
Airbus Industrie was initially headquartered in Paris, which is where design, development, flight testing, sales, marketing, and customer support activities were centered; the headquarters was relocated to Toulouse in January 1974.[8][10] The final assembly line for the A300 was located adjacent to Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. The manufacturing process necessitated transporting each aircraft section being produced by the partner companies scattered across Europe to this one location. The combined use of ferries and roads were used for the assembly of the first A300, however this was time-consuming and not viewed as ideal by Felix Kracht, Airbus Industrie's production director.[10] Kracht's solution was to have the various A300 sections brought to Toulouse by a fleet of Boeing 377-derived Aero Spacelines Super Guppy aircraft, by which means none of the manufacturing sites were more than two hours away. Having the sections airlifted in this manner made the A300 the first airliner to use just-in-time manufacturing techniques, and allowed each company to manufacture its sections as fully equipped, ready-to-fly assemblies.[3]: 53 [10]
In September 1969, construction of the first prototype A300 began.[16]: 20 On 28 September 1972, this first prototype was unveiled to the public, it conducted its maiden flight from Toulouse–Blagnac International Airport on 28 October that year.[6]: 39 [9]: 34 [11]: 51–52 This maiden flight, which was performed a month ahead of schedule, lasted for one hour and 25 minutes; the captain was Max Fischl and the first officer was Bernard Ziegler, son of Henri Ziegler.[10] In 1972, unit cost was US$17.5M.[17] On 5 February 1973, the second prototype performed its maiden flight.[6]: 39 The flight test program, which involved a total of four aircraft, was relatively problem-free, accumulating 1,580 flight hours throughout.[16]: 22 In September 1973, as part of promotional efforts for the A300, the new aircraft was taken on a six-week tour around North America and South America, to demonstrate it to airline executives, pilots, and would-be customers.[10] Amongst the consequences of this expedition, it had allegedly brought the A300 to the attention of Frank Borman of Eastern Airlines, one of the "big four" U.S. airlines.[18]
Entry into service:
On 15 March 1974, type certificates were granted for the A300 from both German and French authorities, clearing the way for its entry into revenue service.[18] On 23 May 1974, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification was received.[16]: 22 The first production model, the A300B2, entered service in 1974, followed by the A300B4 one year later.[8] Initially, the success of the consortium was poor, in part due to the economic consequences of the 1973 oil crisis,[6]: 40 [8][9]: 34 but by 1979 there were 81 A300 passenger liners in service with 14 airlines, alongside 133 firm orders and 88 options.[18] Ten years after the official launch of the A300, the company had achieved a 26 per cent market share in terms of dollar value, enabling Airbus Industries to proceed with the development of its second aircraft, the Airbus A310.[18]
Design:
The Airbus A300 is a wide-body medium-to-long range airliner; it has the distinction of being the first twin-engine wide-body aircraft in the world.[8][9]: 34 [12]: 57, 60 [19] In 1977, the A300 became the first Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS)-compliant aircraft, due to its high performance and safety standards.[6]: 40 Another world-first of the A300 is the use of composite materials on a commercial aircraft, which were used on both secondary and later primary airframe structures, decreasing overall weight and improving cost-effectiveness.[19] Other firsts included the pioneering use of center-of-gravity control, achieved by transferring fuel between various locations across the aircraft, and electrically signaled secondary flight controls.[20]
The A300 is powered by a pair of underwing turbofan engines, either General Electric CF6 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines; the sole use of underwing engine pods allowed for any suitable turbofan engine to be more readily used.[12]: 57 The lack of a third tail-mounted engine, as per the trijet configuration used by some competing airliners, allowed for the wings to be located further forwards and to reduce the size of the vertical stabilizer and elevator, which had the effect of increasing the aircraft's flight performance and fuel efficiency.[3]: 50 [16]: 21
Airbus partners had employed the latest technology, some of which having been derived from Concorde, on the A300. According to Airbus, new technologies adopted for the airliner were selected principally for increased safety, operational capability, and profitability.[19] Upon entry into service in 1974, the A300 was a very advanced plane, which went on to influence later airliner designs. The technological highlights include advanced wings by de Havilland (later BAE Systems) with supercritical airfoil sections for economical performance and advanced aerodynamically efficient flight control surfaces. The 5.64 m (222 in) diameter circular fuselage section allows an eight-abreast passenger seating and is wide enough for 2 LD3 cargo containers side by side. Structures are made from metal billets, reducing weight. It is the first airliner to be fitted with wind shear protection. Its advanced autopilots are capable of flying the aircraft from climb-out to landing, and it has an electrically controlled braking system.
Later A300s incorporated other advanced features such as the Forward-Facing Crew Cockpit (FFCC), which enabled a two-pilot flight crew to fly the aircraft alone without the need for a flight engineer, the functions of which were automated; this two-man cockpit concept was a world-first for a wide-body aircraft.[8][16]: 23–24 [20] Glass cockpit flight instrumentation, which used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors to display flight, navigation, and warning information, along with fully digital dual autopilots and digital flight control computers for controlling the spoilers, flaps, and leading-edge slats, were also adopted upon later-built models.[19][21] Additional composites were also made use of, such as carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), as well as their presence in an increasing proportion of the aircraft's components, including the spoilers, rudder, air brakes, and landing gear doors.[22] Another feature of later aircraft was the addition of wingtip fences, which improved aerodynamic performance and thus reduced cruise fuel consumption by about 1.5% for the A300-600.[23]
In addition to passenger duties, the A300 became widely used by air freight operators; according to Airbus, it is the best selling freight aircraft of all time.[20] Various variants of the A300 were built to meet customer demands, often for diverse roles such as aerial refueling tankers, freighter models (new-build and conversions), combi aircraft, military airlifter, and VIP transport. Perhaps the most visually unique of the variants is the A300-600ST Beluga, an oversize cargo-carrying model operated by Airbus to carry aircraft sections between their manufacturing facilities.[20] The A300 was the basis for, and retained a high level of commonality with, the second airliner produced by Airbus, the smaller Airbus A310.[19]
Operational history:
On 23 May 1974, the first A300 to enter service performed the first commercial flight of the type, flying from Paris to London, for Air France.[6]: 39 [18]
Immediately after the launch, sales of the A300 were weak for some years, with most orders going to airlines that had an obligation to favor the domestically made product – notably Air France and Lufthansa, the first two airlines to place orders for the type.[3]: 50–52 [18] Following the appointment of Bernard Lathière as Henri Ziegler's replacement, an aggressive sales approach was adopted. Indian Airlines was the world's first domestic airline to purchase the A300, ordering three aircraft with three options. However, between December 1975 and May 1977, there were no sales for the type. During this period a number of "whitetail" A300s – completed but unsold aircraft – were completed and stored at Toulouse, and production fell to half an aircraft per month amid calls to pause production completely.[18]
During the flight testing of the A300B2, Airbus held a series of talks with Korean Air on the topic of developing a longer-range version of the A300, which would become the A300B4. In September 1974, Korean Air placed an order for four A300B4s with options for two further aircraft; this sale was viewed as significant as it was the first non-European international airline to order Airbus aircraft. Airbus had viewed South-East Asia as a vital market that was ready to be opened up and believed Korean Air to be the 'key'.[8][16]: 23 [18]
Airlines operating the A300 on short haul routes were forced to reduce frequencies to try and fill the aircraft. As a result, they lost passengers to airlines operating more frequent narrow body flights. Eventually, Airbus had to build its own narrowbody aircraft (the A320) to compete with the Boeing 737 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80. The savior of the A300 was the advent of ETOPS, a revised FAA rule which allows twin-engine jets to fly long-distance routes that were previously off-limits to them. This enabled Airbus to develop the aircraft as a medium/long range airliner.
In 1977, US carrier Eastern Air Lines leased four A300s as an in-service trial.[18] CEO Frank Borman was impressed that the A300 consumed 30% less fuel, even less than expected, than his fleet of L-1011s. Borman proceeded to order 23 A300s, becoming the first U.S. customer for the type. This order is often cited as the point at which Airbus came to be seen as a serious competitor to the large American aircraft-manufacturers Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.[6]: 40 [8][18] Aviation author John Bowen alleged that various concessions, such as loan guarantees from European governments and compensation payments, were a factor in the decision as well.[3]: 52 The Eastern Air Lines breakthrough was shortly followed by an order from Pan Am. From then on, the A300 family sold well, eventually reaching a total of 561 delivered aircraft.[1]
In December 1977, Aerocondor Colombia became the first Airbus operator in Latin America, leasing one Airbus A300B4-2C, named Ciudad de Barranquilla.
During the late 1970s, Airbus adopted a so-called 'Silk Road' strategy, targeting airlines in the Far East.[3]: 52 [18] As a result, The aircraft found particular favor with Asian airlines, being bought by Japan Air System, Korean Air, China Eastern Airlines, Thai Airways International, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, China Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines, Indian Airlines, Trans Australia Airlines and many others. As Asia did not have restrictions similar to the FAA 60-minutes rule for twin-engine airliners which existed at the time, Asian airlines used A300s for routes across the Bay of Bengal and South China Sea.
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft,[24] qualifying for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. In 1982 Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly the A300B4-200FFCC.[25] By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 400 aircraft sold to over forty airlines.[26]
In 1989, Chinese operator China Eastern Airlines received its first A300; by 2006, the airline operated around 18 A300s, making it the largest operator of both the A300 and the A310 at that time. On 31 May 2014, China Eastern officially retired the last A300-600 in its fleet, having begun drawing down the type in 2010.[27]
From 1997 to 2014, a single A300, designated A300 Zero-G, was operated by the European Space Agency (ESA), centre national d'études spatiales (CNES) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) as a reduced-gravity aircraft for conducting research into microgravity; the A300 is the largest aircraft to ever have been used in this capacity. A typical flight would last for two and a half hours, enabling up to 30 parabolas to be performed per flight.[28][29]
By the 1990s, the A300 was being heavily promoted as a cargo freighter.[16]: 24 The largest freight operator of the A300 is FedEx Express, which has 65 A300 aircraft in service as of May 2022.[30] UPS Airlines also operates 52 freighter versions of the A300.[31]
The final version was the A300-600R and is rated for 180-minute ETOPS. The A300 has enjoyed renewed interest in the secondhand market for conversion to freighters; large numbers were being converted during the late 1990s.[16]: 24–25 The freighter versions – either new-build A300-600s or converted ex-passenger A300-600s, A300B2s and B4s – account for most of the world's freighter fleet after the Boeing 747 freighter.[32]
The A300 provided Airbus the experience of manufacturing and selling airliners competitively. The basic fuselage of the A300 was later stretched (A330 and A340), shortened (A310), or modified into derivatives (A300-600ST Beluga Super Transporter). In 2006, unit cost of an −600F was $105 million.[14] In March 2006, Airbus announced the impending closure of the A300/A310 final assembly line,[33] making them the first Airbus aircraft to be discontinued. The final production A300, an A300F freighter, performed its initial flight on 18 April 2007,[34] and was delivered to FedEx Express on 12 July 2007.[35] Airbus has announced a support package to keep A300s flying commercially. Airbus offers the A330-200F freighter as a replacement for the A300 cargo variants.[36]
The life of UPS's fleet of 52 A300s, delivered from 2000 to 2006, will be extended to 2035 by a flight deck upgrade based around Honeywell Primus Epic avionics; new displays and flight management system (FMS), improved weather radar, a central maintenance system, and a new version of the current enhanced ground proximity warning system. With a light usage of only two to three cycles per day, it will not reach the maximum number of cycles by then. The first modification will be made at Airbus Toulouse in 2019 and certified in 2020.[37] As of July 2017, there are 211 A300s in service with 22 operators, with the largest operator being FedEx Express with 68 A300-600F aircraft.[38]
Variants:
A300B1 - The A300B1 was the first variant to take flight. It had a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 132 t (291,000 lb), was 51 m (167 ft) long and was powered by two General Electric CF6-50A engines.[16]: 21 [39]: 41 Only two prototypes of the variant were built before it was adapted into the A300B2, the first production variant of the airliner.[6]: 39 The second prototype was leased to Trans European Airways in 1974.[39]: 54
A300B2 -
A300B2-100:
Responding to a need for more seats from Air France, Airbus decided that the first production variant should be larger than the original prototype A300B1. The CF6-50A powered A300B2-100 was 2.6 m (8.5 ft) longer than the A300B1 and had an increased MTOW of 137 t (302,000 lb), allowing for 30 additional seats and bringing the typical passenger count up to 281, with capacity for 20 LD3 containers.[40]: 10 [41][39]: 17 Two prototypes were built and the variant made its maiden flight on 28 June 1973, became certified on 15 March 1974 and entered service with Air France on 23 May 1974.[39]: 27, 53 [40]: 10
A300B2-200:
For the A300B2-200, originally designated as the A300B2K, Krueger flaps were introduced at the leading-edge root, the slat angles were reduced from 20 degrees to 16 degrees, and other lift related changes were made in order to introduce a high-lift system. This was done to improve performance when operating at high-altitude airports, where the air is less dense and lift generation is reduced.[42]: 52, 53 [43] The variant had an increased MTOW of 142 t (313,000 lb) and was powered by CF6-50C engines, was certified on 23 June 1976, and entered service with South African Airways in November 1976.[39]: 40 [40]: 12 CF6-50C1 and CF6-50C2 models were also later fitted depending on customer requirements, these became certified on 22 February 1978 and 21 February 1980 respectively.[39]: 41 [40]: 12
A300B2-320:
The A300B2-320 introduced the Pratt & Whitney JT9D powerplant and was powered by JT9D-59A engines. It retained the 142 t (313,000 lb) MTOW of the B2-200, was certified on 4 January 1980, and entered service with Scandinavian Airlines on 18 February 1980, with only four being produced.[39]: 99, 112 [40]: 14
A300B4 -
A300B4-100:
The initial A300B4 variant, later named the A300B4-100, included a centre fuel tank for an increased fuel capacity of 47.5 tonnes (105,000 lb), and had an increased MTOW of 157.5 tonnes (347,000 lb).[44][42]: 38 It also featured Krueger flaps and had a similar high-lift system to what was later fitted to the A300B2-200.[42]: 74 The variant made its maiden flight on 26 December 1974, was certified on 26 March 1975, and entered service with Germanair in May 1975.[39]: 32, 54 [40]: 16
A300B4-200:
The A300B4-200 had an increased MTOW of 165 tonnes (364,000 lb) and featured an additional optional fuel tank in the rear cargo hold, which would reduce the cargo capacity by two LD3 containers.[40]: 19 [42]: 69 The variant was certified on 26 April 1979.[40]: 19
A300-600 - The A300-600, officially designated as the A300B4-600, was slightly longer than the A300B2 and A300B4 variants and had an increased interior space from using a similar rear fuselage to the Airbus A310, this allowed it to have two additional rows of seats.[42]: 79 It was initially powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4H1 engines, but was later fitted with General Electric CF6-80C2 engines, with Pratt & Whitney PW4156 or PW4158 engines being introduced in 1986.[42]: 82 Other changes include an improved wing featuring a recambered trailing edge, the incorporation of simpler single-slotted Fowler flaps, the deletion of slat fences, and the removal of the outboard ailerons after they were deemed unnecessary on the A310.[45] The variant made its first flight on 8 July 1983, was certified on 9 March 1984, and entered service in June 1984 with Saudi Arabian Airlines.[40]: 42 [39]: 58 A total of 313 A300-600s (all versions) have been sold. The A300-600 uses the A310 cockpits, featuring digital technology and electronic displays, eliminating the need for a flight engineer. The FAA issues a single type rating which allows operation of both the A310 and A300-600. A300-600: (Official designation: A300B4-600) The baseline model of the −600 series. A300-620C: (Official designation: A300C4-620) A convertible-freighter version. Four delivered between 1984 and 1985. A300-600F: (Official designation: A300F4-600) The freighter version of the baseline −600. A300-600R: (Official designation: A300B4-600R) The increased-range −600, achieved by an additional trim fuel tank in the tail. First delivery in 1988 to American Airlines; all A300s built since 1989 (freighters included) are −600Rs. Japan Air System (later merged into Japan Airlines) took delivery of the last new-built passenger A300, an A300-622R, in November 2002. A300-600RC: (Official designation: A300C4-600R) The convertible-freighter version of the −600R. Two were delivered in 1999. A300-600RF: (Official designation: A300F4-600R) The freighter version of the −600R. All A300s delivered between November 2002 and 12 July 2007 (last ever A300 delivery) were A300-600RFs.
A310 (A300B10)-
Airbus had demand for an aircraft smaller than the A300. On 7 July 1978, the A310 (initially the A300B10) was launched with orders from Swissair and Lufthansa. On 3 April 1982, the first prototype conducted its maiden flight and it received its type certification on 11 March 1983.
Keeping the same eight-abreast cross-section, the A310 is 6.95 m (22.8 ft) shorter than the initial A300 variants, and has a smaller 219 m2 (2,360 sq ft) wing, down from 260 m2 (2,800 sq ft). The A310 introduced a two-crew glass cockpit, later adopted for the A300-600 with a common type rating. It was powered by the same GE CF6-80 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D then PW4000 turbofans. It can seat 220 passengers in two classes, or 240 in all-economy, and can fly up to 5,150 nmi (9,540 km). It has overwing exits between the two main front and rear door pairs.
In April 1983, the aircraft entered revenue service with Swissair and competed with the Boeing 767–200, introduced six months before. Its longer range and ETOPS regulations allowed it to be operated on transatlantic flights. Until the last delivery in June 1998, 255 aircraft were produced, as it was succeeded by the larger Airbus A330-200. It has cargo aircraft versions, and was derived into the Airbus A310 MRTT military tanketransport.
Airbus A300-ST (Beluga)
Commonly referred to as the Airbus Beluga or "Airbus Super Transporter," these five airframes are used by Airbus to ferry parts between the company's disparate manufacturing facilities, thus enabling workshare distribution. They replaced the four Aero Spacelines Super Guppys previously used by Airbus.
ICAO code: A3ST
Operators:
As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service. The five largest operators were FedEx Express (70), UPS Airlines (52), European Air Transport Leipzig (23), Iran Air (11), and Mahan Air (11).[46]

The Essentials

Even the best weather can change rapidly, and even the widest trail can be lost. It pays to take a little extra with you, just in case.
This list is NOT exhaustive – it is just a start – add to this list according to the season and your route.
Notice: Always tell a reliable person where you are going and when to expect you back, leave a detailed trip itinerary, and make sure you know your route and plan accordingly.
The below list assumes you are already wearing appropriate footwear – hiking boots NOT runners. Runners are a terrible choice for hiking. You will slip and or sprain your ankle. Appropriate hiking clothing that is NON-COTTON, such as hiking pants, poly-pro shirt, poly-pro underwear, toque, and backpack. Just remember, these are not get out of jail free cards, electronics can fail, run out of batteries, or lose their signal. Telling someone where you are going, leaving a trip itinerary and bringing the other 9 essentials is critical to a safe outdoor excursion.
​

1. Light

Flashlight or a headlamp with extra batteries (and light bulb if not LED). Green cyalume stick or small turtle lights as emergency backup.

2. Signalling Device

Whistle (we recommend the Fox 40 whistle with a lanyard), Bear Bangers, Pencil Flare

3. Fire Starter

Matches (water proof or in plastic bag) or lighter. We also recommend a commercial firestarter and/or a candle. Commercial firestarters can be purchased at outdoor stores like Mountain Equipment Coop.

4. Warm clothes

Hat or toque, gloves or mittens, puffy jacket, gortex jacket, polypro underwear, good quality hiking socks and gortex over pants.

5. Pocketknife

Although a multi tool is preferred, a good pocket knife with a quality blade will suffice. It may also be worth carrying a small pruning saw for cutting branches when building a shelter or fire.
​

6. Shelter

Large orange plastic bag and thermal tarp.

7. Water and food

Gatorade crystals recommended and high energy food bars

8. First-aid kit

Should include pocket mask; Sam Splint, bulk dressings, protective gloves, bandage, scissors and blister dressings

9. Navigation

Good quality compass with built in declination adjustment and both topographical and interpretive maps. we also recommend a GPS unit but only as an adjunct to compass and map. Most team members carry a Garmin 60 series GPS unit that has terrific reception in the trees.

10. Communications – Cell phone

We recommend you bring a cell phone with a fully charged battery. It is advisable to keep the phone turned off, and stored in a ziplock bag. This way, if you get into trouble your phone will be dry and have a full charge. Many people manage to call 911 initially but their phone dies before their location can be relayed, not a desirable situation. If you have a smartphone, you should also know how to get GPS coordinates off of it to give to search and rescue if you become lost or injured (eg. MotionX or iphone compass app) . Depending on the terrain and difficulty of your excursion, it may also be worth considering satellite based communications devices like the Spot, Delorme InReach or a Personal Locator Beacon.
​

Important Tips regarding the 10 essentials:

The lack of light is the single most cause of overdure hiker calls for NSR. It is so easy to under estimate the amount of daylight left especially if you are deep in the forest. That is why carrying a good quality flashlight or headlamp with extra bulb and batteries per person, is number 1 on our list of the ten essential items. It is also prudent to carry green cyalume light sticks as an emergency backup ONLY. These lightweight items will illuminate the trail around and in front of you sufficiently for you to travel slowly in darkness fro several hours.
Note that training is required to develop efficient skills for use of a map, compass, and first aid kit, as well as to efficiently light fires. However having these items with you can make all the difference in a survival situation.
Why a large orange plastic bag? It’s actually one of the most valuable items on the list. Crawling into the bag helps keep you warm and dry. The orange colour is also highly visible and helps attract attention, particularly from the air.
Why a whistle? It is ideal for siganlling for help as your voice will become very hoarse in a short period of time especially if you are dehydrated. We reccommend the Fox 40 whistle because it works very well in wet conditions and has good range. When sending out a distress whistle blast do three short blasts in timed intervals of 1 to 5 minutes and in different directions from where you are standing as rescuers may be above below or to the sides of you, especially if you are lost in a canyon.If you here whistle blasts from rescuers it doesn’t mean that they can here you. Continue whistle blasts at even shorter intervals 1 minutes or less until they can make voice contact with you and the follow their instructions etc..
We also recommend you carry a heavy duty thermal blanket as this provides excellent shelter and reflects body heat.
Water especially, is an important essential item to take before and during your hike. We recommend you drink between 1-2 litres of water before and carry 1-2 litres. Hydration is directly proportional to your performance but also in maintaining essential fluid balance in your body. This is only a general guideline and is to be adjusted for extreme heat, cold, altitude, terrain etc. We also recommend you carry electrolyte, such as Gatorade in order to replenished salt and potassium that are depleted during excessive exercise. We recommend that you be always fully aware to take short rest and water breaks and hydrate yourself during your hike so as to avoid fluid depletion that leads to heat exhaustion and/or hypothermia.
We combined navigation and communications into number 9 and 10 essential items rather than creating the 11 essential items as they go hand in hand with each other. Knowing where you are and communicating your location in an emergency is a god send, both to yourself and the search and rescue team. As stated above you need proper training to orienteer with compass and map and a GPS should be seen as an adjunct to this. The GPS in itself is a valuable tool and depending on the type and price you want to pay you can get topographical maps downloaded onto the GPS. However, the GPS requires practice and it is not a substitute for orienteering skills especially if you are in terrain with natural obstacles such as canyons, cliff bands etc
The whole strategy to clothing is layering and breathability. This prevents overheating and sweating which can cause dehydration and begin the cycle of hypothermia in cold weather and heat exhaustion in relatively warmer weather. There are many clothing types on the market but you will want to wear underclothing next to the skin that wicks sweat away. It is also important to purchase fleece and gortex clothing that has venting zippers in the armpits and leg areas as this allows excess body heat to vent during times of heavy exercise in inclement weather. A fleece or woolen toque or hat is also a must as a great deal of body heat is lost through the head especially in children. Remember the saying ” if your feet get cold put your toque on”. Good quality woolen or gortex gloves or mittens are a must, especially in winter and inclement weather so as to prevent frostbite or cold injury. This will also allow you to perform tasks such as holding onto rocks or tree branches when traveling in terrain, wood gathering , lighting a fire etc. One additional little tip is to carry two good quality plastic shopping bags in case your boots get wet. You can put on your dry socks and wrap them in the bags then put your wet boots back on. This is great if you are stranded overnight and want yo keep you feet warm and be somewhat comfortbale.It can also prevent frostbite in cold weather in this type of situation.
We did not include footwear as an essential item to carry as it something that goes on at the start of your hike and stays on. Footwear selection from trail runners to approach shoes to light hikers to full mountaineering leather or plastic boots needs to be based on the type of activity you plan to carry out and the type of terrain you will travel in. Remember, if you buy new boots break them in long before your hike and have plenty of moleskin on hand to cover the potential hot spots that always seem to go with new boots. Also, good quality hiking socks are a must as these types of socks will wick sweat away from the feet thus reducing the risk of blisters or skin problems.
​
Source

Solar Farm SolarFarmMinerOffical
Solar Farm is currently has the highest rising TVL’s, it’s based around three assets.: BNB, Solar Panels and Power (in Gigawatts). Deposit BNB in exchange for Panels. Your Panels will go to work earning Power. You will earn 14.28% of your Panels per day in the form of watts shown under “Manage Solar Farm”.
Daily percentage is up to 14.20%. This depends on claiming habits, time of day you compound or deposit, TVL fluctuation. The contract is written to provide an optimal entry for any and all users, new or old.
This is the reason the Panels per BNB amount changes frequently with TVL fluctuation to provide an even playing field for any new user coming to Solar Farm and not giving the first user a head start.
HOW DOES MINERS WORK?The way it works is pretty simple - you deposit your funds into the miner rewards pool and you earn daily interest. Your deposit is locked forever and you cannot withdraw it. However, you can always Claim or Compound your pending rewards. You can earn up to 12% Daily depending on the project you decide to invest in.HOW DOES DEFI WORK?Decentralized finance (DeFi) is an emerging financial technology. It is based on secure distributed ledgers similar to those used by cryptocurrencies. The system eliminates the control banks and institutions have on our money, financial services, and financial products.
SolarFarmMinerOffical
Defi eliminates the fees banks and other financial companies charge us for using their services. Hold your money in a secure digital wallet instead of keeping it in a bank. Transfer funds and access your money within seconds.
SolarFarmMinerOffical

I'm an only child. My dad and mom have had 40 acres that has been in my family for over 200 years. My dad, mom, and myself lived in one house and on the same property my aunt, grandma, and cousin lived in another house about a football field away from ours and we were both the only child so we grew up as sisters essentially. I love her very much (my cousin), but one of my 1st memories in life is of her doing....let's say really inappropriate, dirty things to me. (I'd say the word "m*lester" but I was just informed if I say that I'll be banned) We are about 6 years apart so she was significantly older than I was ESPECIALLY as a child when you go through such rapid growth and cognitively and it is more dramatic in children. She knew it was wrong, she saw that it scared me and she did it for years. She was the "good one" that always did as she was told. I was the straight A student that had emotional issues and always got into trouble. Ended up on drugs and quit high school (have my GED now). I'm 10 years sober, have a home, car, kids, my own grooming business so I have changed my entire life, but she was always touted as the good one and I was the bad one. 2 months ago I finally told my mom (who is the only one still alive that raised us) that my cousin used to do....dirty inappropriate things to me all the time and how much it messes with my head to this day. Especially when I was always being compared to her in some capacity, all the time, when on the inside she was doing awful things to me. It was a nightmare for me. I finally wrote my cousin yesterday and confronted her. She denied it, told me she had no idea what I was talking about and I FLIPPED OUT. Called her a disgusting liar and a hypocrite and blocked her from everything. I know we were kids, I know when you are kids you get curious sometimes but not like that. I was much less mentally and physically capable as she was and I to this day can't believe she did that to me. Her denying it makes me sick to my stomach, yet we did grow up as sisters and she was a kid at that time....DID I DO THIS WRONG?? The way I confronted her, it feels like I did it wrong. It feels like I just walked in and flipped the table as she was having a meal. Nothing will ever be the same after confronting her...did I do the right thing?? AITA??? :'(

It’s been said a million times here, but let me assure you. After looking for many different alternatives, nothing compares to Sheppard Air AFTER your private pilot. I didn’t think IRA Written would be as easy for me as many people in the thread claim, but I passed with a 98%. I’ve never considered myself to be good with multiple choice exams, but I entered my testing center with 3 other people, I was the first one to finish in less than 30 minutes, it felt like I had done something wrong, but once the nice lady at the testing center handed me my paper with a 98%, I knew it was real.
Now that I have used Sheppard air, I feel comfortable talking about how to use it. So obviously, follow the instructions they have listed, word for word (VERY IMPORTANT). The only change I made is when it was time for me to review my missed questions, I wrote down my missed questions on a notepad and memorized them until I couldn’t get it wrong. Over and over, just kept memorizing them. If you’re a bad studietest taker like me, use Shep to pass your exam. Have a way of remembering the number questions as well. Example: when ____ VOR is mentioned, use ____ as your answer.
Im in the checkride phase of my Instrument rating now, throughout my rating, i think I’ve used the IFR sectional maybe once or twice. This is to say that while the written is important in a certain way, it isn’t necessarily the root of your IFR training. There are plenty of good YouTube videos to help you with your oral or general knowledge about how to fly IFR. In addition, Pilots Cafe is a great tool to utilize for your oral portion. Happy flying, wish your clear skies and tailwinds (en route).
Edit: first post ever, please under aviation is serious business. I don’t know much, but I felt like I should share what I personally learned to the rest of you all.

Hi,
I need some advice about car ownership:
1) how i change the address on the car registration certificate? Should i go to the transport department or citizen advice? Can i just provide my new address or do i need something like a recent utility bill?
2) if i declare a car off the road (not used anymore and kept on the private property do i get a road tax refund? (Is paid till the end of the year)
3) car has some issues and i want to sell it however i get very unreasonable offers so i’m consider to sell it for parts. Once i’m done and have only some parts left how do i proceed with deregistration?
Thanks

Yall please help because its affecting me a lot, I'm writing this as fast as i can on my pc bc he checks my screen time on my phone, warning; its a lot bc I'm not allowed to talk to anyone so I came here to let it out and I need help
short story on how we met, important to the story
my bf and go to the same college and we met once in 2019 in campus but it was just a hello and we forgot about each other. we officially spoke in March 2022, no contact until August 2022 when we actually got to know each other. i spoke to him like how I would normally speak with my other friends, i have a big personality and i made inappropriate jokes like you'd see on social media, totally harmless memes and i didn't hide my personality when I was with him, he didn't like it but was okay with until recent, he says he is disgusted with the person I was before. he is diagnosed with OCD. fast forward to October 2022, he confessed and I accepted it and we were official. we don't live together.
the first day i met him in Aug2022, he told me he was only into virgins like he is but he said he has done everything (not sex) with multiple random people before, went on dates with countless people and had few girlfriends. and i told him my past, I've had 2 bfs and a situationship, I've only made out (kissed and received hickeys), sent half naked pic (bikini pics) to one of the bf. at first he didn't pursue me bc of this, then we started talking and i had no intention to flirt with him, I talked to him like I normally talk. then we got together and it was fine for few months. he did say he takes the past of his gfs seriously and he broke up with a few bc they had a past. he asked me if I was okay with his past and ocd and i said yes, until now it doesn't bother me.
feb2023
the problem started in Feb2023 when ex2 texted me on ig (it gave me a panic attack bc it was a very traumatizing relationship and i ended it) and told my bf and he asked me to give my ig pw to him to handle it. then he started going through my chats and he found a chat with ex2 back in 2021, it was very teenagey and childish, few pics but nothing serious but he got very affected by it. i kept reassuring him I've never met ex2 and it was edating bc quarantine. bf and i had a break for 3 days and he kept wanting to break up and in those 3 days i was begging him to stay bc it's not like i cheated on him, i didn't have a talking stage/situationship/anything with anyone since Feb2022 until him. i told him whatever i could remember bc the ex2 relationship affected me to the point i had ed, but until now he pressures me to tell everything that happened and he is making me relive everything.
ever since this incident I've been anxious and haven't been giving my all for this relationship, i wasn't given any reassurance and anything, which i understand bc it affects him so I've learned to accept that (whenever my past issues come up i cant ask for reassurance/comfort bc the past is my fault that i betrayed him before meeting him. - his words). i put maximum effort before feb2022, no complaints from him. until this issue. this happened again in march2023.
march2023
i said 'don't say vulgar words (like i wanna f*** you) bc it doesn't sound intimate" back in Jan2023 and for awhile he was okay with it but i guess he had it in mind bc in March2023 he asked me why i allowed ex2 to speak like that but not him and made it into a whole issue. i had to reassure him and say bc i didn't feel intimate with ex2 but with my bf i did. he said its affecting him a lot and he wanted to break up with me here, i begged him to stay here as well. but it started to tear me apart bc i had nothing but love for my bf and it hurt me a lot and i had to distract myself constantly to be okay.
other problems
we were somewhat fine after that, we kept meeting and went out to eat and to campus but slowly he started restricting everything, wasn't allowed to go out alone or with friend, wasn't allowed to talk to my girl best friend & few other friends bc they were from my past, wasn't allowed to use twitter and tiktok, these apps are to keep up on games, kpop and the things i like, i told him this and he said doesn't care. had a group of close friends my girlbsf and 2 male bsf, he accused me of having a thing w one of my male bsf from that group. we really didn't, all of us were just close friends like siblings, 4 of us knew each other parents and our parents knew each other. but he still thinks i had a thing with him. i cut him off bc respected my bf. i have no problem cutting contact with any male if it makes my bf uncomfy bc its basic respect. but he gives me tests to see if i will pass the test, like will i listen to everything he says, if i don't it will turn into a big fight and i have to beg for his forgiveness and still do it if it makes me anxious or uncomfy. when i asked him to unfollow his ex gfs he would say he wants to keep them so they can see how well he was doing. he would say they are harmless and start a fight with me for even bringing that up. he doesn't like my big personality (para 1) and hes been trying to 'correct my mindset' and 'prohibit me from being wrong'. he always asks about the timeline (para 1) to make sure i didn't 'cheat' on him despite only meeting him for a day and didn't speak for months until Aug2022.
he doesn't allow me to ask questions like, why he can do certain things while he restricts me from doing but it will end up in an argument for asking unnecessary questions. he gets verbally abusive when he is mad about my past and would say he will break my face and will use vulgar language. it hurts me terribly, im not the person to get angry and be verbally abusive, i speak very calmly and wont raise my voice but he will raise his voice and threaten me. we have other problems in the relationship, he has access to my ig and would ask me what i spoke to A(for example) and im required to remember everything that i spoke to A if not he will flip out and say im hiding and lying. i don't think of random people all the time and im always under pressure to remember every convo if not he accuses me of lying or hiding. i honestly have nothing to hide, he reads my old chats with platonic friends and twists it to make it seem like there is something. i admit when we had my past issue in Feb2023, ive deleted few chats because i know he will twist it and i shouldn't have done that and hes very upset about it until now, but I'm glad i did bc it saved me alot of problems, not because i was doing smth wrong but he doesn't understand my humor said 'does everyone know youre a wh*re bc you spoke like that with everyone?' i spoke like how a normal genz that watches tiktok would (step on me for example) i didn't flirt with anyone.
the reason why im writing this is because im scared very scared and tired.
i still love him even after everything, he made me question myself. Am i a narcist or do i have bpd or have any mental issues. be honest you guys. am i the wrong one here? there's so much more and i could see hes a very insecure person and I've been trying to reassure him as much as i can, but its affecting my social life, its nonexistent now. i got an internship at a place i love and he wants to join the place as well, its not a problem for me but he said if i have to work alone he will break up with me because hes worried about me and wouldn't be there to protect me if i get assaulted. im really unhappy, im required to let go of any job offers if he not selected with him, he does the same but i want independence and freedom. i spoke to him about this and he reacted very badly and i had to give in. i feel like i lost myself trying to be the person he wants. he is aware of retroactive jealousy but he takes it out on me in the worst possible way and im left alone to heal by myself. yesterday he wanted to leave me for changing my ig pw without his permission. and he asked for my snap pw and he went through all my snaps from 2020 to present and he is forcing me to tell him which pics ive sent to ex2 as I'm writing this right now. i cant keep doing this. im always under pressure and im stressed all the time, its not enjoyable talking to him anymore. its taking a toll on me, i have other worries other than this relationship but this is 95% of my problems and it affecting my life.
he can be very nice and sweet and he says he loves me but whenever hes hurt hes verbally abusive and might be physically abusive bc he punches walls and breaks things but whenever im hurt and i express it, he will either turn it into a joke or turn it into an argument saying i should've thought about him and how it would make him feel before expressing my hurt. end of the day i must be the one to apologize if im right or wrong, he does apologize as well but only when we have a big fight for him to understand. im on birth control pills for the first time and its making my hair fall and have mood swings but he not there, he doesn't care and said don't blame the pills. i might be neurodivergent and im trying to get diagnosed for Asperger's soon bc i think its one of the factors affecting the relationship and my social skills but that's a whole different discussion. there so much more but i dont have time.
i really dont want to lose him bc we really a genuine good time before the retroactive jealousy and all the relationship problems, i wanted to help him through the ocd, but now i dont what to do i dont think im strong enough for this, right this moment i received a guilt trip message saying he can't eat even when the food is good when he chose to go through my snap (which had only pics of me) to overthink and twist everything and blame it on me. now i have to go admit my mistakes and beg for forgiveness. hes been saying he wants to leave but its a test to see if i will fight for him to come back, when he blocked me yesterday he wanted me to text him on other apps and got mad when i didnt.
to be clear, i have never cheated/flirted with anyone and dont have a reason to hide anything, objectively i didn't do anything wrong while i was in this relationship, ive been very faithful but now i feel like i should delete everything because i cant stand the constant abuse and harassment, id rather be accused of hiding and lying even when im not than explain what each word meant and this happened during my finals as well, i wasted alot of time and im tired. help

3 weeks ago, my daughter was in a car park, she pulled out of her space (forward facing) and was going towards the exit, she noticed a car further up had its reverse lights and was easing out of there space, she stopped as she thought they might not have seen her, and they reversed out and straight into her car, but she said they reverse out at a funny arc and came further back than what they really needed
There is a very little fracture line on her car, the other car has a bigger fracture (from the pictures i sent to bodyshops they have all said it looks like previous repaifiller that has broken)
daughter is 21, first accident the other car was a older guy, she said he was nice and basically said as she had stopped and was in his blind side then they would have to pay excess and NCB.
I was out of the country so she agreed that both would go to bodyshops and split the total cost 50/50 for both cars. Over the last 3 weeks they have sent some text messages back and forth one she states i will pay for yours first then pay for hers, I just said it reads as if you will pay all for his damage ie, you have accepted blame, but she mean't she will pay for his damage 50% and she will fix her car when she saves up the money.
This was 3 weeks ago and he has text her and said he has spoken to a family friend and they have advised him to go through insurance as its possible that there is further damage underneath the bumper.
I got home friday, and we haven't informed the insurance or the police. Hard lesson for her but will they invalidate her insurance now because she hasn't informed them?
I'm going to sit with her today, and go through it online, she did luckily take pictures of the cars in the car park and the damage and she doesn't believe he did or never even see him use his phone.

I tend to only use Magic that is successful, in a proven subjective way.
One of the most powerful forms of Magic is slowing the body’s death functions. I can speed it up no problem, but the objective is to live as long as possible to observe as much as possible.
Another form of Magic is rhetoric. It animates and differentiates the species. Logic is equivalent to the emotional vector of an argument times its authority in conversation. Even if you’re right, with low emotional content and/or low authority, you won’t convince your target and thus won’t enact your will as change in this Universe.
You should only use your Magic if there’s some perceived benefit, or if you’re bored. This needs to be axiomatic. Recognizing consciously what your own intentions are influences the subtle directions of energy flowing in the environment.
I got my car maintenance yesterday. I got bored, so I engaged a low level troll, plumbing the depths of the most fragile ego I have yet to encounter. It’s only getting crazier out there.
Every principle of Magic can be discovered independently. What changes the Magic is the Will, the Spirit wielding the arcane.
Gratitude is the most potent emotion. Humility is the antidote to shame. Improve. Adapt. Evolve.