Hi, one of my family members is going into surgery next week and she really needs the cash, so I’m here to hopefully sell some stuff to help her out. Hogwarts Legacy has been unsealed, but all the dlc codes are unused and can still be redeemed. All the following games and items are in good condition and all ship same day.
https://imgur.com/a/ldQ4xoq
The following prices don’t include shipping, but are negotiable and can be bundled.
Mario Kart Super Circuit: $24
Metroid Fusion: $60
Silent Hill 4: $125
Digimon Survive NEW: $22
Hogwarts Legacy Deluxe Edition: $95
Resident Evil 8 Collector’s Edition NEW: $265
Animal Crossing Wild World K.K. Slider Plush: $60
Animal Crossing Wild World Resetti Plush: $60
Sonic the Fighters Bean the Dynamite Plush: $550
NEW Elden Ring Vinyl Collection Limited Edition #2717/#6999: $225
Thanks for looking and please help me out and share with anyone interested. Take care.

Looking for a new or very slightly used Ddm4v7s upper in nearly perfect condition.
Preferably under 500 rounds and at/under $900
Aimpoint RDS under $440
Scalarworks 1.93 under $110

Hello all. I have skated in my Edea Overtures for four months now and I feel like I have broken them in, but their shape is not quite perfect for my feet, they are still a little narrow around the toes. At the shop where I bought them, they told me Overtures could not be heat molded but that I could use a blow dryer to help with a particular problematic spot. Has anyone done that? Any advice on that?

By way of introduction, I’ve been running 5/3/1 for a couple years, but only started taking my training and nutrition seriously about a year ago. My PRs are 240 bench, 140 OHP, 235x4 squat, and 285x5 deadlift (deadlift is nowhere near a PR, I just like to leave more in the tank on deads as the risks from form breakdown are so high).
I have a history of back issues, so I deadlifted very infrequently up until maybe 3 or 4 months ago. Prior to this, I was generally running 5/3/1 3x week with no deadlifts and maybe an additional fun/prehab day on Saturday mornings.
Since adding them consistently, my knees have been wrecked. Adding them coincided with finally getting my squat up to a semi-respectable number, and I play a lot of basketball as well, so there are tons of factors here and I’m trying my best to isolate the cause.
I’ve stopped playing ball for the past month and switched from parallel squatting to full squatting with the intention of starting low and working my way back up. I had an unrelated back injury a month or so ago so I had to drop deadlifts again. Despite this, my knees are still killing me if I sit for too long - the pain gets much better with activity. It’s gotten to the point I’ve stopped running 5/3/1 for my lower body and am now doing light ATG squats (135 3x5) and machine work to try to rehab my knees, but minimal if any progress has been made.
Anyone with similar experiences have an idea what’s up / any suggestions as to how they handled it? It’s killing me not to be able to train lower body with any real intensity, and basketball was my main conditioning.

Sorry in advance that the article is in portuguese.
https://www.jornaldenegocios.pt/empresas/automovel/detalhe/ue-cede-a-alemanha-e-admiter-motor-de-combustao-apos-2035-desde-que-a-biocombustiveis
TLDR: they can produce ICE cars if they use bio fuels, so porche syntectic fuel and bio fuel might see big investment from big oil but better see the outcome of this since it's probally gonna get alot of heat from the climate weirdos.

I've had sporadic episodes of back pain and limited mobility since my 20's; they were pretty rare until a few years ago. No acute trauma, just years of doing stupid shit catching up with me. Then it progressed to excruciating, immobilizing pain every few months for days at a time. Waking up in the middle of the night in tears, being stuck in bed. Went to a chiropractor and it helped a lot - his diagnosis: "You are one twisted sister", lol. Had him prescribe an MRI which showed 2 herniated discs, one much worse, that protrude out of the back of my spine. Surgery is an option - they just go in and chop off the protruding part, I guess, but I've heard horror stories so I'm trying to keep that as a last resort. Also trying to avoid hardcore pain meds.
Currently managing it with monthly chiro visits, got an inversion table to help decompress, cortisone or lidocaine shots in the disc as needed, usually every 4-6 months, stretching, heating pad...It's been tolerable, a bad day here and there but mostly under control.
For a while, I thought, I guess this is just my life now, and it fucking sucks, so I'm very grateful to be able to manage it. I really feel for those with chronic pain, having had a taste of it.

Want to buy full size 1911 grips, preferably VZ, for $30-45 for a pair depending on condition. Looking for black, black/grey, brown, or green coloring. Not picky on grip profile and the other cut options that VZ offers.
Also open to wood grips cause 1911.

My AirPods 3rd gen won’t connect. They were working last night. I went to use them, but they wouldn’t connect. I removed them from the bluetooth list, but now I can’t connect them at all. I have tried resetting my AirPods, and also restarted my phone. I have charged them, and the front light is on. Nothing has worked. Is the bluetooth part of my AirPods broken?

I don't think so, Numbers 22:

20 God came to Balaam at night and said to him, “If the men have come to call you, rise, go with them; but only do what I tell you.” 21So Balaam rose in the morning and saddled his donkey and went with the princes of Moab.

Balaam decided to go. But then:

22a But God’s anger was kindled because he went, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as his adversary.

He didn't do anything wrong. Why was God angry with Balaam?
Balaam was an unusual character in the OT. He was a pragmatic pagan prophet. He was well-known for his prophecies among the pagans. That's why Balak wanted to hire him. He went with misgivings. He really wanted to benefit his own pocket if he could. He did recognize and acknowledge the power of the LORD:

34Then Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you stood in the road against me. Now therefore, if it is evil in your sight, I will turn back.” 35And the angel of the LORD said to Balaam, “Go with the men, but speak only the word that I tell you.” So Balaam went on with the princes of Balak.

The LORD repeated the required condition of Balaam's going to see Balak.
To Balaam's credit, he did uphold this condition. At the end of his meeting with Balak, Numbers 24:

12And Balaam said to Balak, “Did I not tell your messengers whom you sent to me, 13‘If Balak should give me his house full of silver and gold, I would not be able to go beyond the word of the LORD, to do either good or bad of my own will. What the LORD speaks, that will I speak’?

If Balaam's story ended here, it would be a happy ending. Such was not the case, only months later in Numbers 31:

8They killed the kings of Midian with the rest of their slain, Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian. And they also killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword.

Why did the Israelites kill Balaam?

15Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? 16Behold, these, on Balaam’s advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the LORD.

More explanations are given in Revelation 2:

14 But I have a few things against you, because some of you hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to place a stumbling block before the Israelites so they would eat food sacrificed to idols and commit sexual immorality.

Was Balaam a true follower of the LORD?
A true worshipper of the LORD would not worship idols as Balaam did. Balaam was a pragmatist. When the Lord spoke to him, he listened to the Lord. When some other gods spoke to him, he listened to them. He wasn't faithful exclusively to the Lord.

My main desktop has been damaged due to flooding and I was wondering which device I should purchase until I'm able to save up for something more powerful.
I'm considering purchasing a macbook air m1 in the meantime, either the base model or saving up a bit more for the 16gb (or purchasing the m2 base model). I just need a laptop for up to 6 months that can handle figma and Adobe apps that has a bit of resell value. What do yall suggest?

Pics/Verification
Hi all- today I am listing a small bundle of pens/one pencil. Included are 3 pilot parallels (6.0, 3.8 and 1.5)- one will have a converter, but I will also include a box of cartridges that you can empty and fill with your own inks. These are rated in C condition. Two Platinum Shooting Stars with F nibs- both will include converters- rated in B condition. A pentel rose gold pencil (B condition) and a Titanium click pen (G2 style) from The Right Choice Painting Company (B condition). None of these items will include original packing but will come packed carefully by me. The items are all in good, working condition- just keeping the herd thin!
I paid $40 alone for the click pen. I'd like to see $55 shipped obo (please remember that also covers PayPal fees) for all of these fun writing instruments! Comment below and PM/chat! :)

Hello, I’m experiencing some intermittent rough idle/misfires in my 2009 2.5i. When I come to a stop, the idle RPM drops way too low and the car wants to stall out. Give it some gas and get it rolling and the problem goes away. Even at the NEXT stop it’s completely normal. There is no CEL, no codes (I have an Autel scan tool) So, I’ve already replaced spark plugs and wires (they were due), cleaned MAF, new air filter, cleaned throttle body, tested ignition coil (replaced with a working spare oem one I had lying around from a previous vehicle and the condition still occurred), cleaned EGR valve, used injector cleaner fuel additive, checked for intake/vacuum leaks and couldn’t find any. I guess that leaves 02 sensors, and maybe a clogged PCV but that just seems unlikely to me.
Does anyone have experience with this issue, and if so how did you fix it?

I’m currently on 2023.2.12 and I just got notified to download 2023.2.0.5. What’s the difference. The release notes talk about sentry lighting and the heated steering wheel. I feel like the last 2-3 updates have been nearly identical. Thanks! 2023M3P sans USS

begin quote {
​
​
What’s wrong? You were only raped for 6 and a half thrusts.
She only gave away 32% of her property to charity? How immoral.
Clearly, Smith is an outstanding fellow as his washing machine is of average size.
How dare him for making $1.602 more than I make!
What is wrong with the arguments above? In each one, a moral judgement is made, be it condoning or condemnation. While the specific arguments here are quite rare, the logical fallacy that they rely on, arbitrary metrics, is disturbingly common.
Within each argument there exists something arbitrary. In the first argument, it is implied that to rape for 6 and a half thrusts is not a sinful (or bad) act. We are left wondering where the speaker draws the line between good and bad, or at least between innocuous and bad. Is rape not wrong, categorically? The argument seems to imply that rape is only wrong when it exceeds some arbitrary value beyond 6 and 1/2 thrusts.
The 2nd argument explicitly states that it is immoral to only give away 32% of one’s property to charity, but is giving to charity not a selfless and good act, categorically? Why would we need to impose an arbitrary metric unto it? And if we do impose an arbitrary metric that decides a value below which to give is immoral and above which to give is moral, then we would have no way of knowing what that special value is, we would have to subjectively define it. Such is the dilemma of using arbitrary metrics for moral judgement.
The 3rd argument states that Smith is outstanding because his washing machine is within the size parameters of the average washing machine. Is it not Smith’s own decision what to do with his own property? If he wants a tiny washing machine or a large washing machine, no washing machine at all, or one of every variety, that is his decision and not our business at all.
Lastly, the 4th argument is quite interesting since it claims that a lack of equality is immoral, which is also an arbitrary argument. Equality is impossible as all men are different and regions have variable resources. Indeed, it can even be shown that it is an impossible goal, yet many statists have used this impossible target as a basis for flawed ethical arguments.
The way in which the public defines the word “monopoly” is based on arbitrary ethics that are no less silly than the four examples I presented.

Monopoly vs “Monopoly”

The public, including the media, uses an arbitrary de facto definition of “monopoly”. Many, even those of whom that advocate for small government, claim that a business is a monopoly merely because it has few or no competitors. By itself, this is an arbitrary definition of a monopoly. Whenever a new product is invented, by the definition above the innovators involved would constitute a monopoly since new products necessarily means that no competitors exist yet. Furthermore, due to specialization of tasks, no business is the same even among a similar line of products. Technically, they each can be argued to be monopolies. This may sound silly, but that is the point – if law is arbitrary, it will be used tyrannically. The state could choose who to target; similar to how it chose targets in the public interest era; similar to how statists choose today.
Ultimately, the size of a business is an arbitrary metric that is no less silly than the statement “You were only raped for 6 and a half thrusts.” In fact, as we will see in our economics chapter, the size of a business in a free market is an indicator of how much utility it has provided society as opposed to how evil it is according to the statist.
The sector that a business operates in is arbitrary as well, since it can be defined to mean anything. As mentioned with the specialization of tasks, no two businesses are identical, so the “sector” can be divided up as minutely or as broadly as we like, effectively handing the state the powers to target whomsoever they wish to target.
Finally, the region that a business operates in is arbitrary. A local supermarket is a monopoly by the state’s standards if only we define the street or town that the supermarket exists in as it’s “region”.
By tampering with any of the three arbitrary metrics of size, sector, or region, any individual or business can be defined as a de facto monopoly and subject to antitrust enforcement. The definition literally claims that good-vs-bad hinges on the extent to which a thing exists.
I could propose something truly radical - that what is evil ought to be proven with careful argumentation and that arbitrary metric cannot possibly identify evil.
There is a fourth major issue with the antitrust argument and the idea of the de facto monopoly.
The antitrust scholar, armed with his arbitrary metrics, conveniently excludes a key assumption when forming his arguments. He and his following of statists argue that if a business becomes large enough, it will have little or no real competitors within it’s sector; and thus, it will “price gouge”. His predictions fail, repeatedly. [That is, his predictions fail with the ironic exception of true monopolies, which he ignores. The tech platforms did indeed price gouge, where the price was in information rather than in money, but they did not price gouge simply when they became “large”. They price gouged once they had legal privileges from the state sector.]
The assumption that the antitrust scholar conveniently excludes is the existence of virtual competitors – competitors that do not exist but could in the near future. Time and again, he asks, “What is stopping a de facto monopoly from artificially raising prices?” The de facto monopoly does not do this because it could face retribution from a new rival that does not exist yet. In fact, contrary to what the antitrust scholar claims, larger corporations tend to operate efficiently and lower prices! The Apple Store is a market unto itself that is regulated by Apple and with Apple products being sold in it. Apple literally regulates a market that it also competes in. Why not charge their competitors a ridiculous fee for placing their products in that market? Even before the Google Store and other app-related retailers came into existence, Apple charged a reasonable fee to host other products in their store, because even early on, Apple could be punished by its customers. If outrage grew, some individual would capitalize on that outrage because it would benefit him to steal Apple's customers. Apple, since it is not a real monopoly, has to consider the virtual competitor because Apple cannot exclude competitors by force, which was what a true monopoly was defined as before statists corrupted the term. The existence of the virtual competitor is a feature of the free market, because a person that does not provide some service could freely create that service if he wishes to. Such a simple and praxeologically true assumption is conveniently ignored by the antitrust scholar when he claims that successful businesses will price gouge.
The arbitrariness (size, sector, and region) along with the denial of reality (virtual competitors) of the new definition of "monopoly" (the de facto monopoly) creates an incentive for normal people to disseminate statist propaganda. That propaganda necessarily takes the form of anti-free-market ideas that do not hold up to scrutiny. Rothbard neatly addressed anti-free-market criticisms grounded in the statist’s notion of “monopolies”:

If we define “monopoly” as the “single seller of a product,” we founder on insoluble problems. We cannot identify homogeneous products, except in the concrete day-to-day valuations of consumers. Furthermore, if we consider such monopoly as wicked, we must regard both Crusoe and Friday as vicious monopolists if they exchange fish and lumber on their desert island. But if Crusoe and Friday are not wicked, how can a more complex society, one necessarily less monopolistic in this sense, be at all wicked? At what point in the reduced scope of such monopoly can it be considered evil? And how can the market be held responsible for the number of people inhabiting the society? Moreover, every individual striving to be better than his fellows is thereby trying to be a “monopolist.” Is this bad? Do not both he and the rest of society benefit from his better mousetrap? Finally, there is no conceptually identifiable monopoly or monopolistic price on the free market. ^{Rothbard, p. 1299}

Statist propaganda is any verifiably untrue sentiment (unwittingly or deliberately proselytized) meant to exorcise or expand the state's power to the destruction of prosperity. All one has to do is ask the question: Can market losers (the deal-with-the-devil engineer or the dirty fighter) use this definition and the state's power to serve their special interests? Until the public begins to distinguish between the statist's de facto definition of a monopoly, and the means-oriented definition (a de jure monopoly, or monopoly in law), then antitrust enforcement will lead to lesser freedoms, more state powers, and contrary to the statist’s claims, less competition.

The proper way to deal with evil is first to identify its very principle; only then can this evil be abolished. Intervention and regulation, instead of banishing evil, only institutionalize it, and use public coercion to promote and continue this evil in official ways, instead of dispelling it. If government somehow monopolized the efforts to keep other monopolies in check, the urgent thing to do is not to use this government monopoly, but to abolish it^\71])

If reasoning alone does not suffice, perhaps empiricism will. Antitrust cannot address problems, as was the case with Microsoft in 2000 where illegal activity was not addressed, and legitimate, benign behavior was punished.^\Rideau])
The inefficacy of antitrust results from an arbitrary de facto definition of 'monopoly’ - that a business is a monopoly because it is large and has few or no competitors - and the denial of reality, namely the fact that a business cannot exclude his competitors by force (which enables in the virtual competitor).
If a reader is still not convinced, I urge him to find an example of a de facto monopoly that price gouges or does anything that angers consumers without facing immediate consequences. What inevitably results is a critic will find a legitimate evil occurring, but that evil is the result of a de jure monopoly, a monopoly in law.
In a free setting, no business has ever angered consumers and not faced the consequences unless that business has some de jure monopoly status - status that can only result from government. The reason for this is simple. The de facto monopoly cannot exclude competitors by force, so for it to be successful, it must obey the principle of reciprocity. Only a de jure monopoly can exclude by force. As such, we need to establish a more logical criteria for the word “monopoly” since the statists (socialists, Marxists, socialists-in-all-but-name, conservatives, etc) corrupted the term.

Criteria based on law and other legal constraints define monopolies in law: there is a (quasi)monopoly in law when laws (or any kind of rules enforced by the use of public force) establish a monopoly by preventing customers from seeking providers not blessed by the political power, or equivalently by preventing potential competitors from providing services that compete with those from the protected provider(s). To a libertarian, such laws that promote a de jure monopoly are an assault on the liberties of consumers and competitors, even when they fail to result in a monopoly in fact.”^\Rideau])

What Rideau is saying here is that a monopoly is forced onto consumers. It may not always result in a de facto monopoly, but it is forced onto them regardless. For instance, a town may have private mail carriers and government mail carriers. A citizen of this town may choose to use the private mail carriers. The government mail carrier is still a de jure monopoly however. Regardless of whether or not a citizen uses it, he is forced to pay for it (taxation) upon penalty of further fines, imprisonment, violence, or death.
Another example is Housing Regulation, which is a de jure monopoly that happens to also be a de facto monopoly. If two parties wish to exchange a house, they must use the state’s Housing Regulation. To not use it bears the penalties mentioned above, and citizens don’t even have the option in this example to use a private analogue to Housing Regulation. In fact, to attempt to use a private regulatory party for a housing exchange bears the same consequences as if the two exchanging parties decided that they did not need the Housing Regulation to begin with. As a result, if housing regulation is a service that people value and would freely choose, it would matter not because for someone to attempt to provide this service in the economic sector is strictly forbidden by the de jure monopoly of government housing regulation, not unlike other de jure monopolies (state agencies, state licensing, state regulation, etc). Ironically, this is one example that the antitrust scholar’s neglectfulness of the virtual competitor actually holds true, yet no such “scholar” is going to analyze true monopolies.
Government licensing and regulation agencies that act as coordinators^\u]) are de jure monopolies precisely because they are third parties that two parties must contract through in order to do business with one another. There are no virtual competitors allowed. Such actions not only decrease the prosperity of society by forcing all of society to pay for them, but also by degrading the efficiency and possibilities provided only by the free market.
For perspective, if an exchange takes place between buyers/sellers, and they choose to use a third party as a security or coordinating measure, the exchange has to absorb the price of that third party – the seller will receive less, and the buyer will pay more because the 3rd party has a cost. This is perfectly acceptable if the two parties freely choose the 3rd party's services, and this scenario reduces down to two separate sets of parties engaging with one another freely. In this way, free market coordination or security obeys the principle of reciprocity and other competitive factors, making these much more efficient and competent services than their government analogs, yet where a government licensing, certification, or agency exists, such free market dynamics are strictly forbidden. Indeed, it is highly hypocritical of the anti-trust scholar to neglect such arguments and to even use arbitrary metrics and illogical arguments to grant true monopolies more power!^\v])
For the de jure monopoly, such as a government regulation, the exchange will nevertheless have to absorb those efforts (taxes and other fees). Now imagine if many, many industries or even entire market sectors had de jure monopolies in them – 3rd parties we are forced to contract with.

Government intervention, subventions, privileges, regulations, taxes, differential treatment, legal discriminations, and all pieces of legislation, are indeed coercive destruction of riches that generate de jure monopolies. Often, this intervention takes the form of laws enacted in the name of the ``public welfare´´, that limit the freedom to contract: the government forces certain transactions to take certain forms, with employers, landlords, retailers and others being bound to conditions not born from the mutual interests of exchangers: minimal and maximal prices, minimal and maximal limitations in the schedule, duration, quality and other conditions of work, of housing, of retail, etc.”^\Rideau])

The tech platforms and the CVE community began as economic traders, but now contain de jure monopoly status since (1) excess coerced funds were gifted to them by the state and since (2) coerced funds were used by the state to provide privileges for the participating businesses and to slander their opposition^\w])
The chosen platforms have de jure monopoly status due to state intervention. Facebook and Google are not monopolies because they are “big”. They are monopolies because they have legal privileges and because their competitors are excluded or discouraged by government action. Their competitors have more legal and political hurdles to overcome than Facebook and Google had when they were being formed. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and the other 54 organizations involved are monopolies because force is being used on their competitors and on their critics. Force is being used to keep them from failing.
anti-trust enforcement {n.} the body of law claiming that voluntary exchanges are evil if certain arbitrary qualifications are met; the body of law that alters the definition of “monopoly” to allow The State to regulate voluntary exchanges^\x])
The answer is not to wield the thing that causes this - de jure monopolies - against Facebook and Google, but to abolish it. Only by abolishing de jure monopolies would we end the tyrannical reign of “big tech” and the CVEs.
Finally, the de jure monopolist (or the government official, be it a proxy or established government official) has a dual interest that the economic trader does not have.
People pursue their own interests to the best of their ability and engage in mutually beneficial exchanges if free to do so. Otherwise, the party being taken advantage of wouldn't participate in such exchanges. Hence, free exchanges must be mutually beneficial, though critics of the free market cannot admit this.
The state sector is still dominated by individuals pursuing their interests as well, but there are two goals of the individual in the state sector: (1) perform the service of the government agency, and (2) maintain one's position in that agency. There is no such duality in the economic sector, because by engaging in an exchange with another party, a person is satisfying his own ends while simultaneously satisfying another’s. For the government official, his ends (maintaining his government position) does not necessarily mean that he benefits the other party (tax payers).
Fundamentally, the problem with the de jure monopoly (government) is that: The government official is insulated from the basic principle of reciprocity.
Two other points to make about the differing interests is that in the economic sector, people can fail and make calculations based on the free market exchange. If the economic trader’s endeavor fails, it is because others did not want to engage with it or were not aware of it; in which case he abandons it, calculates how it can be fixed to provide more utility to others, or calculates how it can be marketed to make others aware of its existence. He fails or re-calculates.
In the state sector, there is no metric (the profit-and-loss test) to gauge the competence of state endeavors because they are de jure monopolies with no competition and/or no free exchange. In fact, if it is faulty, it will receive more funding. As Milton Friedman puts it, "If a government enterprise fails, it is expanded."^\72])
One of the clearest examples of both this duel interest and a feedback loop that creates more government is public testimony at congressional hearings. It has been observed that in certain hearings, the majority of people who testify are government workers – federal administrators, local officials, tax-paid teachers, and congressmen themselves. They can even outnumber citizens (economic agents) at hearings. To be clear, government workers attempt to increase their own funding by showing up to House hearings in order to impact Congressional votes. The larger the state apparatus gets, the more feedback that government will give itself to increase the size of itself.
These people keep their jobs by impacting political votes – not by being good at their jobs. That is a dual interest that a simple de facto monopolist cannot have.
But the corporation has special privileges, right?
Since the nature of the corporate model has been questioned by both libertarians/capitalists and non-libertarians/capitalists, I shall now address the “privileges” of the corporation...
​
​
} end quote The Modern Control of Information: V. The Great Legal Indoctrination
tl;dr only a limp noodle accepts the antitrust argument

My name is Henry Jacobs, and I once worked for the government. The things I saw, the things I did... I don't even know where to begin. Years have passed since I left that wretched place, but the haunting memories still plague me.
I was under the impression that I was a low-level technician at a top-secret facility, clandestinely situated deep within the Appalachian Mountains. We were never informed about the facility's purpose, but we were given strict instructions and explicitly forbidden from asking questions.
The first incident that made me doubt my role was when I accidentally discovered a concealed room behind a deceptive wall. Inside, I was met with rows upon rows of glass tanks, filled with a nauseating green liquid. Suspended in those tanks were the most grotesque creatures I had ever laid eyes upon, their bodies disfigured and twisted, with limbs contorted at unnatural angles.
I was petrified by what I saw, but I couldn't muster the courage to confide in anyone. The fear of losing my job and potentially being silenced by those in power consumed me. So I remained silent and continued to work, day after monotonous day.
It wasn't until the facility went into an unexpected lockdown that I genuinely comprehended the gravity of my discovery. We were trapped inside, unable to communicate with the outside world. The once sterile halls were now filled with the anguished screams of my colleagues, as the nightmarish creatures escaped their glass prisons and hunted us down one by one.
Through some twist of fate, I was among the fortunate ones. I found an escape route, crawling through the suffocating air ducts as I tried to block out the sounds of death and destruction that relentlessly pursued me. When I finally emerged into the cold, unforgiving night, I knew that I couldn't remain silent any longer. I had to unveil the truth and reveal to the world the horrors that the government was concealing.
With that conviction, I went on the run, determined to share my harrowing tale. I gave interviews, penned articles, and recounted my story to anyone who would lend an ear. The government, unsurprisingly, denied everything, and I was soon labeled a lunatic and a traitor. I lost everything I held dear - my job, my reputation, and even my family.
Then, one day, the nightmares ceased. The memories of the facility and the abominations within began to fade, as if they were being meticulously erased from my mind. It was as if a veil had been lifted, and I could suddenly perceive the world for what it truly was.
I was left with nothing but the bitter knowledge that I had been manipulated, a pawn in a game I couldn't even fathom. The more my reality unraveled, the more I realized I wasn't in my home, I never had a home or a family. Stark-white walls encircled me. It dawned on me that I may have never actually worked for the government. The memories, the facility, the horrors...
I am a victim, I am a subject...

Honestly this is kind of a crack theory but. Paper is made out of wood. Hell, the kanji for paper 本 is nearly the same as the kanji for tree 木. When I was learning kanji I was taught to remember the paper kanji as a thin slice of tree.
Also in Naruto Wiki it says that Konan’s chakra natures are wind, water and earth. Mokuton is a combo of earth and water, and wind has slicing uses, hence the kanji (plus paper flutters in the air)

So I found out I have a pelvic floor dysfunction. I've been in pain for months, pain that feels like period cramps+stabbing pains in my pelvic floor. It's day 3 of exercises and I already notice a decrease in how much pain it causes - less stabbing pains in my vulvar area, in my vagina. But my low abdominal and low back pain is not getting better. Does it still need time or could it be an underlying condition? My pain began when I got an IUD placed, and it's been almost 3 months since it's been removed.

If you missed my last update post on Season 6 please check it out. https://www.reddit.com/ExpeditionUnknown/comments/10fe3qw/update_on_season_6_of_expedition_x/
Vernal, UTAH (Skinwalker Ranch... Well Kinda)

• January-18 They stayed at the SpringHill Suits in Vernal, Utah.
• January-19 Filmed at the Mcconkie Ranch Petroglyphs. They also did an interview there. The whole place was covered in snow and Jessica made snow angels haha. The Film Crew split up to shoot some B-roll.
• January-20 A Crew Member dressed up as a Cat or maybe Dog Monster and ran around in the snow. I believe they were filming a Reenactment or at least I hope so haha.
• January-21 They filmed at night and it was really cold.
• January-23 I think this was a day off. Some of them went to an Arcade.
• January-24 Somewhere in the Uinta Basin they film an interview with an eye witness on their private property that connects to the Skinwalker Ranch. They never step on SWR Property, they were only allowed to go up to the property line. We will have to wait and see how they play this off when the Episode airs. They rented off-road vehicles from Adventure Tours Vernal. The Film Crew made ramps out of snow and jumped the off-road vehicles. One of them almost flipped forward on the landing, it looked dangerous but fun haha.
• January-25 to 28 I know they filmed at night one more time but other than that I have no idea what they did these 4 days.
• January-29 To the airport, everyone flew home.

Ireland And England (Hellfire Club)

• February-8 They arrive in Dublin, Ireland. Phil's Wife and Daughter joins him again. Jessica and Film Crew have lots of drinks that night.
• February-9 First Film Day. They ride Horses up Montpellier Hill to the Hellfire Club Ruins. They filmed that night in the Ruins.
• February-10 Temple Bar, Dublin. Drinks, drinks and more drinks haha.
• February-11 Filmed interviews at the Marsh's Library. Drinks, drinks and more drinks hahaha.
• February-12 Day off.
• February-13 Travel day, London England
• February-14 Road trip to Oxford. They rented a Land Rover. They Filmed at the Hellfire Caves in West Wycombe. Some of the Crew dressed up for a Reenactment.
• February-15 They wrapped up this Episode and had a big dinner.
• February-16 Travel day, at London Airport and off to Romania.

Cluj-Napoca, Romania (Witches)

• February-17 They filmed at a Sheep Farm. Did an interview with some of the farmers and got to hold baby sheep. They got to drive off-road vehicles and the Crew got wild again haha. A woman who lived on the farm fell in love with Jessica haha, She wouldn't let go of Jess and the Crew made fun of her. They had lots of drinks which became the theme for this Europe trip haha.
• February-18 They were filming out in a field and the Producer started digging a hole. Jessica got into the hole and Phil pretended to bury her, I think just for fun. Then a Cameraman got into the hole and Jessica and Phil stood above him so he could get the shot (???) idk haha. That night the Crew partied at a Club called Plan B.
• February-19 Day off.
• February-20 Filmed at the Orthodox Cathedral and Avram Iancu Statue.
• February-21 Filmed at the Equestrian Statue (King Mathias, Matyas). That night they filmed with 4 Witches named Casanndra Buzea, Buzea Ana Maria, Anda Mihaiela, and Vrajitoarea Mihaela Minca. Jessica loved filming with them. They then went back to their hotel and the Producer had way too much to drink haha.
• February-22 They go to a forest near Floresti (not sure if was Hoia Baciu Forest) and film with the Witches again. They had a small fire and a hot coal popped out of the fire into Jessica's hair. One of the Crew put it out and Jess says she owes him a life debt now haha.
• February-23 They wrap this Episode up and have a big dinner.
• February-24 Travel day, At airport by 3:00AM and fly back to England.

Chester, England (???)

• February-25 They filmed at a field/forest and rode atvs. Plus a night shoot.
• February-26 Day off. I'm not sure but some of the Crew went to Diddly Squat Farm Shop which is owned by a TV Host named Jeremy. I think they rented a Land Rover from him but again I'm not sure.
• February-27 Filmed at the Chester Cathedral and in the streets (Chester City Walls).
• February-28 Filmed an interview at the Olde Cottage Pub Chester. Then road trip to Buxton, Peak District.
• March-1 Filmed at Stanage Edge. They did a rock climb.
• March-2 Jessica did an interview with BBR-Being Believed Research and Phil took a Helicopter Tour.
• March-3 Day off and that's a wrap on Europe.
• March-4 Phil and his family flew to Iceland for a vacation and everyone else flew home.

Hollywood

• March-16 Jessica and Phil was in Studio to work on VO for the Episodes and I'm guessing filmed the intros with Josh.
• Today is March-21 and I believe they will start filming again tomorrow. I think 2-3 more Episodes.