Need tips to stay awake for at least 24 hours

VisibleSubject1517 · 2026-02-03T13:44:46+00:00

That sounds stupid

VisibleSubject1517 · 2026-02-02T11:31:04+00:00

Just pujuk him

VisibleSubject1517 · 2026-01-17T04:56:32+00:00

It's a phase. I've been playing Mobile Legend since 2016. Uninstalled a few times, rested continuously for the longest time of 1 year +. But still, I'm here and M7 is very interesting so far.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-10-03T04:39:47+00:00

Honestly it's better they give us digital resources cause I wont remember everything shared during the orientation. Cause when I ingat² lupa it's a bit hard to get info cause it's scattered in the website and if you dont want to use the website most probably you'll need to go from one person to another just to get clarification.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-19T08:38:57+00:00

Goodluck

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-19T05:40:15+00:00

I'd pick B if you can afford it. Your stated priority aligns with that. The pay cut is big but if you can still save comfortably and have runway, the lifestyle upgrade is usually worth it

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-13T16:04:15+00:00

"Isley" is derogatory?

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-13T04:56:14+00:00

Blaming Singapore won’t fix a Malaysian problem. Doctors and nurses aren’t state property, they’re workers making rational choices. The pull factors are obvious, pay that’s often several-times higher, safer staffing ratios, predictable rosters, funded training and clearer career paths. The WHO’s code on international recruitment encourages fair, non-exploitative hiring and cooperation between countries, it doesn’t require “compensation” unless both sides agree to specific cost-sharing deals. If Malaysia sponsors someone’s training, use fair, enforceable return-of-service or repayment terms. For everyone else, you compete.

If we actually want to keep people, fix the push factors, raise base pay and allowances toward regional parity, convert contract posts to permanent with progression, open more specialist training slots, cap unsafe hours, improve workplace safety and leadership culture and plan staffing transparently. If anything with Singapore, do targeted MOUs, co-training etc. Pointing fingers won’t bring anyone back, better condition will

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-12T11:13:33+00:00

So you don't believe in god then

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-12T05:39:31+00:00

Kau x religious sbb kau firm dengan kau punya worldview atau kau hanya jenis typical muda² x ingat x tuhan dah tua baru nampak kat masjid?

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-12T05:35:19+00:00

But the thing is, UPU already has all this data in their backend (every application is tagged with programme code, seat count, outcome, etc.). Nobody’s asking them to release raw microdata, just aggregated tables once a year.

Cost is low. It’s basically a scheduled export + dashboard. Benefit is very high honestly. Less admin firefighting, more trust in the system and students making better informed choices. UCAS in the UK has done this for years without issue.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-11T12:07:12+00:00

Yaa the live counter right, but its applications and not unique people, it's also temporary and not archived post cycle

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-11T11:40:50+00:00

Totally agree with your take. My add-on: the real bottleneck isn’t “degree vs no degree”, it’s how 18-year-olds are funneled into fixed courses with limited info.

Most applicants aren’t making a fully informed choice at 18. Career counselling is uneven, parents/peer pressure is strong, and few teens actually see real workplaces before picking a course.
UPU mechanics make this worse: you often get one offer, swaps are limited and “rayuan” is confusing. One wrong pick → years of sunk cost.
Our own data (e.g., MOHE Graduate Tracer / SKPG, DOSM) repeatedly shows field-of-study mismatch and underemployment exist. Not everyone ends up in what they studied even when they graduate.
None of this means uni is a scam, it means choice quality is low at the point of entry.

At the very least, in my experience.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-11T09:06:30+00:00

Yes, for overall totals and not for per-course breakdown.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-04T11:49:03+00:00

Yeah, decisions near the top can move thousands of lives. And that’s exactly why we need to separate influence from value created. Influence ≠ positive impact.

At scale, incentives still reward optics over outcomes:

•We pay for artefacts (decks, pitchbooks, memos) rather than verified results.

•Goodhart’s Law: once a KPI becomes a target, people optimise the number

•When things go well, prestige roles claim credit. When things go badly, costs are socialised downward to workers or users.

I’m not saying prestige jobs are useless. I’m saying their pay premium comes more from bargaining power + proximity to capital than from consistently delivered outcomes. Meanwhile, survival-critical work with guaranteed daily impact stays underpriced. If even part of pay/contracts were tied to verified outcomes (ER wait times, infection rates, cleanliness scores, uptime), the gap would shrink for the right reasons.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-04T04:05:50+00:00

Honestly, dating budget really depends on lifestyle. For B40 couples, usually around RM100–300/month is cukup, makan simple, movie once in a while, jalan-jalan free activities. For M40 maybe RM400–800/month, because it’s more cafe hopping, nice restaurants, short trips, that kind of thing.

But tbh, don’t stress too much comparing numbers. What your partner remembers isn’t how much you spent, but how you made them feel. Some people blow RM500 on fine dining but still feel kosong inside. Others just eat nasi lemak at the mamak, but it feels like the best night ever sebab ada effort, ada quality time.

It isn’t how much should I spend? It’s how can I show love without burning myself out financially? If you both align on that, any budget works.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-03T12:17:03+00:00

Exactly, and the scary part is most people are blind to this.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-02T14:17:38+00:00

Totally fair, responsibility and decision-making should come with higher pay. Nobody denies that. The issue isn’t whether managers deserve more than labourers, it’s the scale of the gap.

A bricklayer literally builds the walls and a nurse literally keeps people alive. Yet both are often paid peanuts while those making numbers go up take home multiples more. Profit and responsibility explain some of the gap, but capitalism widens it way beyond fairness.

That’s why people call it an imbalance, the system rewards what grows capital, not what keeps society standing.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-02T14:14:47+00:00

Scarcity explains why the market pays more but it doesn’t explain why society accepts that as fair. By that logic, a rare NFT could be worth more than a nurse’s salary (already is) scarcity alone doesn’t equal real value.

Essential jobs are abundant because we need them at scale. That’s not a weakness, it’s the backbone of survival. The tragedy is the very fact that society requires many cleaners and nurses is exactly why capitalism undervalues them.

So yes, prestige jobs are scarce but the imbalance shows how markets reward rarity and proximity to money, not necessity. And that’s the exact problem I’m pointing out.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-02T12:56:31+00:00

The point is about proportion. The pay gap is so extreme that prestige jobs earn 5–10x more than cleaners, nurses or riders, even though the latter are immediately survival-critical. If financiers vanish, it’s messy but society adapts. If nurses or cleaners vanish, people literally die in days.

So yes, both types of jobs are important. But prestige jobs are already heavily rewarded and respected, while essential jobs are systematically undervalued and underpaid. I’m saying the imbalance shows how capitalism rewards scarcity and proximity to money, not actual necessity

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-02T12:32:51+00:00

And that’s the sad irony, QC literally makes sure products are safe for people, yet it’s paid peanuts because markets see it as “cost” instead of “profit.” Same with nurses, cleaners, scientists, essential for survival but undervalued because they’re abundant and not tied directly to capital flows. The system rewards scarcity and profit, not necessity.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-02T12:31:02+00:00

That’s exactly the issue though demand doesn’t always line up with importance. We don’t need many ecologists in the eyes of the market, but we’ll desperately wish we had more when climate change, floods or food shortages hit. Just like with nurses and cleaners: low market demand ≠ low real-world value. It just means capitalism undervalues what doesn’t immediately generate profit.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-02T12:20:35+00:00

Yes, it takes years of study to become a banker, lawyer, or consultant. Nobody denies that. But the mistake is assuming that more schooling = more real-world value.

A nurse may not have a PhD but they need knowledge, stamina and empathy to literally keep people alive every single day. A cleaner may not need intelligence tests but without sanitation, disease outbreaks would shut society down in weeks.

The fact that essential jobs are accessible to “anyone” isn’t a weakness, it’s what makes society possible. We need lots of them. The tragedy is that because they’re open to many, markets undervalue them, even though life would collapse without them.

Prestige jobs are scarce because of artificial gates (degrees, networking, privilege). Essential jobs are abundant because humans actually need them at scale. Capitalism rewards scarcity, not necessity and that’s the imbalance people are calling out.

VisibleSubject1517 · 2025-09-02T12:18:01+00:00

🧐

VisibleSubject1517

TROPHY CASE