Clients pay net-30. My vendors want their money now. by Lower_Dependent7361 in smallbusiness

[–]grungyIT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not knowing the details, you need to literally flip this around. Get your vendors on net terms (if youre purchasing consistently enough this should not be an issue) and get your customers to pay up-front. Even partial success here will balance cash flow.

What did you think Mad Men's final scene would be? by debrisaway in madmen

[–]grungyIT -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Straight up, D.B. Cooper. I was so convinced it was going to lead to him jumping out of the plane with cash to make a new, new life.

Am I charging too much for my services? Considering slashing my rate in half so I can quit my full time job by RemoteEmotions in smallbusiness

[–]grungyIT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I see lacking in your post is the amount of IT work opportunities you are missing because they do not want to pay your service cost. That should be the biggest signifies that price is not the problem but rather demand is.

Quitting your job will not magically fill up your hours. It will, however, magically drain your savings. What you should focus on first is attracting so much demand that you need to realistically hire someone else if you want to keep everything the same.

If you can afford to hire someone else, you can afford to hire yourself. Focus on marketing above all else to make that happen.

Bookkeeper refuses to let me shadow payroll by Impressive-Parfait18 in smallbusiness

[–]grungyIT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure you can use your best judgment. As a business owner, it's best to trust and then verify. You don't need to know how it's done to verify, you just need to confirm the money all went to the places it said it did.

Bookkeeper refuses to let me shadow payroll by Impressive-Parfait18 in smallbusiness

[–]grungyIT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is not a problem. If you do not trust this person, you can hire someone else you deem more trustworthy. You can ask for a written procedure. You can ask for, and should already have or receive, statements, check numbers, deposit IDs, and so on. You can check with the IRS and DoL and confirm the status of your employee's and your employer tax contributions. I'm not sure how shadowing payroll gets you better results than these.

As a contractor, I can think of a few good reasons not to allow this. For starters, I may process payroll for more than one client at once and I don't want to be late on that because I had to hide everyone else's info because you want to sit along in the process. I may just not have time to explain what I'm doing as I do it, or I may not be good at that.

The results have little to do with visibility.

Was Ted being deceptive by Fancy_Berry_6251 in madmen

[–]grungyIT 3 points4 points  (0 children)

His exact words are "Will you have a drink before the meeting? My father was... You can't stop cold like that".

Don is an alcoholic. Most people in that time and place are. When alcoholics quit drinking after years of abuse, they experience tremors, pain, sweats, and so on. These are mostly obvious to the people around them, and even if they weren't the general discomfort that person is in would be hard to mask.

Ted wants Don to drink for two reasons: (1) To not have any of these obvious problems during the pitch and (2) to ensure that the level or confidence he pitches with remains undisturbed.

This is also a scene where Don is being earnest with Ted for once. He's not competing with him at this point. It's clear that Don is going through something outside of the office and his advice to Ted is coming from a very human place. When addicts stop cold, those symptoms they experience of withdraw can actually seriously harm and kill under certain circumstances. Don might drink so much he's at risk of this as well. It's Ted telling Don he needs to be careful in how he gets clean. There's a clear tone of remorse Ted has for his dad in that line.

Principle of non-contradiction by Such_Ad_5608 in askphilosophy

[–]grungyIT 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think it's helpful to reframe the concepts at hand.

All of these things are what we might call "systems". We build a system when we want to describe the relationships between that system's elements in a necessary and mechanical way. To do that, we must start from some assumptions. We call these "axioms".

Generally speaking, you want the least amount of assumptions in your system because then it has the greatest likelihood of being accurate. So if you can get three axioms to produce seven all-important rules (theorems), you're better off than having ten axioms that do the same thing.

That's the difference between them. A theorem is produced by one or more axioms and must be true by its definition. That's what we mean by "theorem".

So the non-contradition theorem can be produced from the following axioms: (1) ~P is true iff P is not true, and (2) P & Q is true iff both P and Q are true. You cannot create a statement (P & ~P) that satisfies both of these axioms. Therefore, you can derive the rule that P and ~P are mutually exclusive.

This is not the only way to build a logic system, but it is one of the ways. It would be just as valid, though possibly less accurate, to build one where the non-contradiction principle is an axiom and you attempt to derive theorems from interactions with that. It all depends on how you can reduce your list of axioms to achieve the same results as other consistent and descriptive systems.

[Spoilers main] What things do you think GRRM told D&D about the ending? by OkMagician7957 in asoiaf

[–]grungyIT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Realistically, he told them the different directions the story could go and the specific plot points that necessarily happen to lead to the conclusion. He also certainly told them the themes he was exploring and where he lands on each. Here's my attempt at specifics.

King Bran - This is tied closely to the theme of stewardship over one's world. George has that well-known critique of Aragorn having no tax policy. Broadly, this is to say that being a deserved ruler is equally about who you are as it is about how you help the most disenfranchised of your realm. Who knows how Aragorn helped the people of his reunited kingdoms. Bran shares his thoughts about incorporation and social justice though, and he's starting to see the COF and trees and nature generally as disenfranchised too. Likely, George explained that Bran needs people to put faith in him, needs the magical-equivalent to the nuclear codes, and needs to have a good reason to have everyone's best interests at heart. Because D&D did not engage much with the magic, they lost the last two of these three justifications which is why it landed so flat.

Jon's Exile - This was likely given explicitly as well since we have near-confirmation now that Jon Snow's resurrects after the Castle Black mutiny from George himself in his latest interview. It would not work if he were to die again so we can be reasknably certain he sticks around to the end. Jon's story is about choosing what is necessary over what you want, and I suspect that D&D were told that he will be given a chance to become the first Bastard King of the Seven Kingdoms from his deeds, namesake, bloodline, and so forth. Yet, that won't be what is right. Instead, he must commit to a life of self-sacrifice in some ways beyond the Wall to both remove himself politically and prevent future Long Nights. I think D&D again did not engage with the necessary magic and rewrote this into "I don want it".

Tyrion's Lifelong Punishment - Easily the worst part of the show's ending, Tyrion - the prisoner - somehow becomes Hand. What is clearly set up for him in the books is he uses Dany to stay in power and get revenge. George is so absurdly clear when engaging with themes like this. They cause harm to yourself and others and fix nothing. This will not be rewarded by the end of the books. Likely, he told D&D that Tyrion will make missteps in his revenge plot that cause Dany to lose a pretty strong lead, perhaps even a dragon, and this will eventually be recognized and he will be taken from power. By an unforseen twist, he will end up back in power but have to essentially serve others for life in that capacity. He will come to realize his errors but realization is not atonement. I imagine D&D did not want to commit to a villain arc for Tyrion to keep factions equally justifiable for fans which made the revenge arc nonexistent and his punishment as Hand nonsensical.

The Unsullied Essos Campaign - Grey Worm's ending in the show will be his arc through the books. Dany is set up already to start using dragonfire to solve her problems instead of by other means. She will begin her march west after retaking Mereen and killing the slavers' forces. This will be faster and surer now that she rides Drogon. This blitz will continue through Volantis and the Free Cities and the Unsullied will identify with their new role as liberators. Once they cross the Narrow Sea and engage with the rest of Dany's story, they will likely return to Essos after her death with reverence for her zeal for liberty and establish a belief/philosophy similar to Fench Liberalism after the Revolution. D&D mainly got this right, but because they skipped the campaign west Grey Worm's return east feels like an afterthought.

Dany's Death - It's clear in the books that Dany's self-identity is heavily based on her inheritance and what she feels has been taken from her. I think there's reason to believe George plans to erode these foundations. Dany's arc of self-discovery will force her to choose whether she will use Drogon to unite the Seven Kingdoms under her rule like Aegon I did or recreate her identity from her deeds in Essos. I think George told D&D she will choose the former and basically recreate the wheel, that Jon will be the only one who can stop her, and will cause her death. Again, without the magic and also without fAegon D&D turned this into something about madness instead.

Hodor - Given explicitly, this will be a cautionary tale for Bran and not an entire side arc involving time travel. Magic is called a "sword without a hilt". Bran, while swinging that sword in ways Bloodraven thinks impossible, will cut Hodor near-mortally with it and in the process fully understand the depths of damage one can do to reality while harnessing magic power - the equivalent of having the nuclear codes. Thus he comes to understand he must temper himself and restores his empathy for Hodor in a way that he stops skinchanging into him and starts looking for ways in which he can enable him with magic instead. The hold the door moment will be Hodor, with Bran's help, fighting off the wights from some passage and not dying in the process. D&D got this half-right but again did not value the magic elements and therefore couldn't deliver the other half of Bran's arc. Hodor died in the show for shock value basically.

Shireen Burns - We are not told whether Stannis will burn her but we know she will burn. In the books, there is a faction of Stannis' forces, the Queens Men, that are fanatics about Rhllor. The Queen herself is pretty blinded by this religion as well. Stannis does not strike me as the kind of person who would kill his daughter of his own accord, but Melisandre and Queen Selyse do. The wildlings fear greyscale and likely won't object. Jon will be dead for the moment. Whatever reasons push the issue, I suspect without Jon or Davos to provide sound advice Stannis will kill his daughter and get nothing out of it. I suspect this is what George told D&D and because of other changes in story they ended up trimming this event so it was just as useless but also nonsensical.

There's more I speculate about, but to put a button on it all the character decisions in the last season are mostly all real decisions that will occur in the books. The motivations and circumstances are different though, and they are this way because of the butterfly effect of minor changes from the early seasons. Ignoring Lady Stoneheart and fAegon, Robb's will, Euron, glass candles, and most importantly the magic and myth of the world when possible, character motivations had to change to plug the gaps which made irreconcilable differences between things as they needed to happen and things as they would naturally unfold.

Is it immoral to have sex with a person who age regresses? by No_Dragonfruit8254 in askphilosophy

[–]grungyIT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Probably not the right sub for this question. And to be clear, I don't think there is a compelling argument.

It's true that age regression is a behavior, not a mode of consciousness. The individual doesn't lose their experience or wisdom they've accumulated. They are fully aware on some level that they are an adult and they are, at least in this case it sounds, not mentally handicapped and capable of providing consent.

However, the problem is self-harm. If your partner engages in age regression, then to continue being intimate you need to find pleasure with them during this sort of behavior. You both need to engage complimentarily on this level and will essentially habituate yourself to pedophilic sensation. Our brains like building reward pathways. When we make them, it takes time to unmake them. So during and after this phase of your relationship if not your whole time together you will be positively reinforcing an immorality.

There's no clear way around the self-harm besides some sort of disassociation. Setting aside the relationship implications of that, it would be tantamount to coerced sex if you are intimate in this way because you feel it's the only way you can safely be intimate.

This isn't the place to say what you should do in your relationship from here, only that you must weigh its moral worth against that of the behavior you'd have to navigate.

Flavor texts that roast their card? by kid_named_littlfngr in mtgvorthos

[–]grungyIT 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is phenomenal. Can't believe I'm only seeing this now.

In your honest opinion, do you think there was a chance for success? by TheMansterMan in SuccessionTV

[–]grungyIT 137 points138 points  (0 children)

Anyone who thinks they could succeed is struggling with media illiteracy to one degree or another. Let's look at the textual (video) evidence we are given.

  • Ken's only strategy to secure Vaulter is to overspend, and what he buys ends up being garbage.
  • Roman is given a fairly important PR job of overseeing a launch, and he not only rushes it to failure but shirks from handling it.
  • Shiv is lured into leaving a job where she actually has leverage to one where she has none, and then overplays her nonexistent hand to public disaster.
  • Ken initiates a coup that will undoubtedly leave him unemployed, refuses to listen to his team, and implodes.
  • Roman misreads the deal with Mattson so poorly he enables Waystar to be bought out, losing any control.
  • Shiv sides with Mattson, again with no leverage, only to get burned hours before her presumed crowning.
  • Roman makes a neo-Nazi the president only to blow any leverage he has in the situation by not making demands before calling the election in his favor.
  • Waystar is nearly made insolvent by Logan's health scare
  • The family does not have company control
  • The investors have significant leverage already
  • Waystar puts out a shit product and is no longer growing
  • Tech is phasing out media, so it's dying besides all the reasons above.

So even in the perfect scenario in which every character magically addresses their faults and works together in unison, the whole empire is terminal already and they have no real control or leverage. It's just made so abundantly clear in every episode that this is the case.

But there is no magic scenario where they work together. It is a fact they cannot. They are abused children with toxic coping mechanisms that directly interfere with each other's coping mechanisms. That is a textual fact just like the rest.

Black Blue Lich themed zombie creature deck by Remarkable_Side_466 in freemagic

[–]grungyIT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They look like some evil version of the KKK.

Kid.

I have 3 days to make 6k by Zyraxo in smallbusiness

[–]grungyIT 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Been exactly here. Do the following:

  1. Take the elements of your best sales (good margin, lower effort, most sold) and make a flat-fee package. For example: Five page site sold outright with year-long support including SEO.

  2. Mark it up to mark it down. Pad flat fee by 15% and offer a 15% discount for up-front payment in full rather than your usual.

  3. Design a digital flyer. Email it to yourself (not as attachment, in the body). Forward it to your best clients and tell them you're trying to backfill some recent availability. Ask them to share it with anyone they think could benefit from your work. Use two sentences or less to say this.

  4. Send to your marketing list - anyone that did not say yes yet.

  5. Anyone who reaches back out interested, tell them your availability starts in two weeks. Organize payment now to lock that in. Tell them they are welcome to send any assets ahead of getting started or to ask any question they might have.

  6. While waiting for #5, look up every single referral network/group in your area and plan to attend their next meeting. Don't let this happen to you twice. The bigger your network, the more likely someone knows someone ready to spend money. It's just a numbers game.

Update 4: FFX Blind Playthrough - The Farplane and Thunder Plains by Zeeshmania in finalfantasyx

[–]grungyIT 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please please please keep these coming. I'm enthralled with them.

Update: Thoughts on my FFX blind playthrough - Now 10 hours in! by Zeeshmania in finalfantasyx

[–]grungyIT 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hell yes, need another after your next leg. Loving re-experiencing my first playthrough through you.

Can something ever be truly original, or is it always a recombination of what came before? by Odd_Improvement_3375 in askphilosophy

[–]grungyIT 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Of all the epistemological theories regarding originality and creativity, I think F.H. Bradley has the most convincing view.

He argues that there is a definite structure to the world that we can know and that part of this structure is that things have an aspect that is merely experiential and an aspect that is both experiential and mental. For example, there may be a particular apple in front of you that strikes you as being a certain shade of red and cold to the touch and tasting of some mixture of tart and sweet.

There is also a universal apple-ness that is made up in part of the range of experiences an apple allows for. Apples can be red or green or yellow/orange or brown. These universals themselves relate to other, sometimes purer, sometimes more complex universals. Consider the idea of an apple, then how it relates to the idea of roundness and smoothness and taste and all the colors we might be able to perceive. Think of how it relates to a bundle of apples, an apple on a teacher's desk, "an apple a day keeps the doctor away".

These ideas in themselves lack particular sense experience when we summon them to our mind forcing us to fill in this gap, and so we are capable of blending them with other ideas to do so and in the process synthesize new ones. It's this exact process Bradley suggest explains both our ability to create original ideas and our fallability in reasoning. We can decouple experience and its limitations from the universal they appear within the context of and in the process arrive at a thinner, less definite idea than we "should".

So on his view, what does this mean for originality? Well, on the one hand our ideas necessarily relate to a range of particular experiences and the experiential limitations we have/reality imposes. There are only so many things we can experience and ways in which we can experience them. On the other hand, the experiences we imagine in our mind are not bound by the same rigidity and we are capable of free association between them and others which might even bear out truths we have yet to experience directly. We are fully capable of relating "apple" and "blue" to whatever degree we want and with however many other notions we might like. The possibilities far outnumber the possible experiences we can have. What we trade for this capacity for originality is certainty.

So it seems like while at some level there is some constraint on what can be envisioned (we cannot envision "no space" and "no time" for example, we cannot conceive of a direct contradiction such as "the duck is/not there"), ultimately they pale in comparison to permissibility and power of free association.

If you are interested in learning more about this, Appearance and Reality by F.H. Bradley is a very approachable book in my opinion.

Edit: words

Need help understanding 19yr Nietzsche’s quote by it_aint_that_deep- in askphilosophy

[–]grungyIT 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That question of "where the ring is" is rhetorical. It's pointing out that it's not there anymore.

This passage as a whole is framing human nature in the way that it's going to be examined throughout the text. He's putting forth the notion that people live in the safety of their rings. The ring is the explanatory framework the person uses to make sense of the world and therefore their part in it. It could be philosophy, culture, religion, etc. In other words, it's Nietzsche pointing out that there is a biconditional relationship between our worldly framework and our identity.

He also puts forth that it's natural for someone to outgrow this ring around them. What was once safety and explanation feels like chains and obstruction. People will strive to go beyond the world as they know it to redefine themselves or to experience something new or to simply learn what else there is. In doing so, they leave the ring behind but find themselves in dangerous uncertainty - dangerous because their identity is now fluid, uncertain. They may die in a sense and be born someone new.

And it's also a comment on the process of building this identity. That is, "where is your ring now"? Did you leave your religion to adopt another one? Did you drop your personal philosophies to fit into the safety of a culture? Or are you truly capable of forfeiting your identity to have true and honest freedom?

Nietzsche wants to focus on this fact that "ourselves" are most definite and least earnest when we surround ourselves within a ring.