clocko:do Time Tracking . Start for free Over 6.000 companies trust us with their time. That's where your time is going. Find out where your business is succeeding and which areas still have potential for development. Learn more. Tracking work and project times ... Take the Quiz. Can You Match the Theme Song to the ’60s TV Show? Take the Quiz. Can You Guess the Musical From a One-Sentence Summary? Take the Quiz. Popular Categories. ... Can You Guess The Most Popular Movies of All Time From a Single Sentence Summary? Can You Finish All of the Best Quotes From “Clueless”? Friends Quiz: How Well Do You ...
2022.01.20 11:37 Pie-True What time do you take Amitriptyline?
I take it about 8:45-9:15pm. But I’m wondering if that too later for someone who tries to go to bed before 10pm. What time do you guys take it?
submitted by Pie-True to Amitriptyline [link] [comments]
2022.01.20 11:37 ShortAlgo $CNVY Awaiting Buy Signal. Free Trial https://t.co/wUyihf7O6A https://t.co/jZNYVIxGNg
|submitted by ShortAlgo to UltraAlgo [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 aqua_zesty_man Rename gunpowder to something more fantastical.
2022.01.20 11:37 Budget_Plane_5896 Any success with moving out of room for two weeks?
We roomshare (no other option) with our little one. TCB recommends moving out of the room for two weeks to establish a solid nighttime routine then you can move back in. Curious if anyone has had success doing this? My 7mo goes down totally independently but wakes up every 2-3 hrs throughout the night. Curious if it would help for us to move out for a bit?
submitted by Budget_Plane_5896 to sleeptrain [link] [comments]
2022.01.20 11:37 WannabeCommando007 Uncut or circumsized men. What's the preference?
2022.01.20 11:37 DamnBoi6ix9ine Anyone got any card (GPU) lying around?
2022.01.20 11:37 boo29may I am struggling to get help and just found out insurance doesn't cover ADHD because it doesn't cover developmental issues. I feel so abandoned.
After writing a really long letter to my GP because I just can't cope anymore and I am sure I have ADHD but need a diagnosis and help I got an appointment 3 months away. Today was it. I went, waited 40min and they said they couldn't find the doctor (or reach them) so they need to reschedule and will just send me a letter with another date. I got health insurance and called them to see if I could get something through them and they said ADHD is not covered because they don't cover developmental issues such as Dyslexia and ADHD. I am so frustrated. I am struggling so much to do everything without help and trying to advocate for myself after years of being ignored by doctors and I feel like I am failing. I am posting here because have noone else to share this with.
submitted by boo29may to TwoXADHD [link] [comments]
2022.01.20 11:37 ShortAlgo $CASI Awaiting Buy Signal. Free Trial https://t.co/wUyihf7O6A https://t.co/F3S3BKjovt
|submitted by ShortAlgo to UltraAlgo [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 Unilit $BBAI Big Bear AI Low Float DeSPAC Play 🔥1 Million Shares Float
| I got some information about a recent DeSpac play that makes its extremely susceptible to volatile movements. Big Bear AI a deSPAC play has released a information via S-1 Filings that reveal that it currently has an extremely low float under a certain price point $10.15 with just 1,048,504 Shares available under that price point the rest have to be sold at or above that price. Because of Backstop Agreements and Forward Purchase Agreements that the company got into in order to have enough cash for the merger to go through.|
This information presents an extremely wonderful opportunity to investors with this being a value play as well as a low float Squeeze play. If enough shares and options get purchased and excises it would force call writers to buy more shares to delta hedge and cause the price to spike to or above 10.15. Backstop Shares don't have to be sold at prices that they are allowed to because either way they will get paid for there shares. And with AE being the purchaser of majority of the Backstop Shares and being a owner of 80% of the shares that are under a 12 month lock-up period unless the price exceeds $12.50 for more than twenty trading days they have an incentive to let the price run up while call sellers will be forced to buy there shares at a premium.
submitted by Unilit to SqueezePlays [link] [comments]
2022.01.20 11:37 Scope_808 Uploaded a new montage, lmk what you think! (Apologize for the bad quality, not much I could do about it for this one)
|submitted by Scope_808 to doomfistmains [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 soo99_99 Eros, Artemis and Oizys Vinyl as New preorder February
2022.01.20 11:37 SgtThund3r Seemed like it was worth crossposting here
|submitted by SgtThund3r to MarchAgainstNazis [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 dejobaan Sucker for Love: First Date - Put the 'love' in 'Lovecraftian horror'! Perform terrifying rituals to win the affections of eldritch horrors and smooch 'em... at any cost!
|submitted by dejobaan to WhatsOnSteam [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 shootingbot Midway: Alliant Green Dot Smokeless Gun Powder
|submitted by shootingbot to InStockPowder [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 Medellin1983 My status finally changed.
I haven’t received any emails or calls since applying in September.
Today my status changed to “ in review/ pending validation “
Does this just mean they are looking at it and I haven’t been selected? Don’t get excited? Haha
submitted by Medellin1983 to CAReliefGrant [link] [comments]
2022.01.20 11:37 MorganSchmeeman Valkan(Left) and Sarkadian(Right) infantry
|submitted by MorganSchmeeman to ToySoldiers [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 minimeol New YouTube channel "Let's speak Sakha!" by Maria (aka Life in Yakutia)
|submitted by minimeol to Sakha_Yakut [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 Neo-Bubba Maybe maybe maybe
|submitted by Neo-Bubba to JustGuysBeingDudes [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 GlitchyLag How the fuck do you guys make girlfriends/boyfriends?
I always never attempted or even thought about asking anybody out I always had the thought that teen relationships had the habit to fail, while there are just people in the hallway at my school literally hugging each other.
How the hell?
submitted by GlitchyLag to teenagers [link] [comments]
2022.01.20 11:37 nyenkaden MIT Denies Deal To Open A Bali Campus
|submitted by nyenkaden to indonesia [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 Eifand I disagree with the priest's decision on my baptism. What do I do? Should I try to change his decision? I feel he is endangering my soul and possibly allowing me to take Eucharist unworthily.
| Long story short, my friend jokingly baptized me when we were goofing around at the beach a few years ago in 2018. This was before I decided to become Catholic. Even though he admitted his intent was to goof around and play a joke when he did it, he used the proper form and matter. |
The priest overseeing RCIA considers that the joke baptism was not valid as it did not have the proper intent, and was intended as a joke. He intends to give me a full baptism ceremony.
Here's the problem. What if the joke baptism was somehow valid? Then the baptism wouldn't do anything because I would already be baptized and after Confirmation, I would be taking the Eucharist for the FIRST TIME EVER IN A STATE OF MORTAL SIN. I am already in deep trouble with God and you want me to risk further condemning myself?
Wouldn't the safest route be to do a CONDITIONAL baptism, and have me confess all mortal sins since the joke baptism JUST IN CASE IT WAS VALID?
Also, during the interview where he investigates whether we were baptized or not in the past, I offered to show him a screenshot of my conversation with my friend where my friend explains what he intended when he "baptised" me in the sea. The priest didn't even want to look at it! It's like he didn't even care. Shouldn't the priest be rigorous in his investigation? I even suggested that maybe I should do a confession in case the joke baptism was valid and he kind of handwaved it off saying, we can do it if it make's you feel better.
submitted by Eifand to Catholicism [link] [comments]
2022.01.20 11:37 kebaabtube The Sony TV Games Console Prototype from the 1970's
|submitted by kebaabtube to playstation [link] [comments]|
2022.01.20 11:37 stiridinbucovina Daca somajul tehnic s-a prelungit, era clar. NU se ridică RESTRICȚIILE în România! Raed Arafat: „Rămânem foarte precauți. Încă nu am ajuns la vârf”
Raed Arafat - șeful Departamentului pentru Situații de Urgență a declarat, joi, că nu se pune problema ridicării restricțiilor în România în momentul de față. Acesta spune că încă nu am ajuns la vârful valului 5 pentru a se vedea impactul.
submitted by stiridinbucovina to stiridinbucovina [link] [comments]
2022.01.20 11:37 KEKWTV Net Worth $ 4.000.000 btw // (I can't upload with reddit somehow pls help)
2022.01.20 11:37 DiePack123 Constitutional Monarchy Vs Absolute Monarchy in developed and developing states
This is an extended and enhanced version of a ranting comment on a post here.
Also reposting to get more criticism. I want to get to 20,000 words.
For those who disagree, please comment. I plan on expanding this exponentially.
Edits will be made from time to time to improve coherency. I can’t do this all at once since I am really quite busy. I do hope that a large debate develops in the comments though.
Warning. This is very long.
Context: someone posted a stupid post about China being good and I threw a fit.
Do me a favour and upvote. I need as much criticism as possible so exposure would be great.
I’m beginning to see an awful lot of people on this use the recent success of a certain authoritarian state, alongside a variety of others, to make the case that democracies do not work and that absolute monarchies under an enlightened leader would be the best option for us all. This sub has been no stranger to those who advocate the rule of absolute monarchs, who often look to historical success to justify their opinions. Recently though, this has started to shift to a reverent view of autocracies, with this position being justified with Rapid GDP growth figures, moral stability compared with democracies and the nice continuation of a line of leaders who can plan in the long term. I staunchly disagree with this view, and below I have outlined why this view is not only flawed, but dangerous.
Highly developed nations (of which most constitutional monarchies are) are far more likely to be democratic than developing and least-developed nations. The slow nature of growth in highly developed nations due to their advanced state which creates a lack of an opportunity to copy those who went before them (as there aren't any) and the effect industrialisation has on the expansion of output in developing nations means that growth is far more likely to be slow relatively speaking. Democracy is likely to speed up this process if strong institutions are established. Botswana is by far the best example of this. Botswana started out as the 3rd poorest state in the world upon independence from the British, however it is now one of the richest states in Africa and by far the most stable. This is due to the rule of a man called Sir Seretse Khama, the tribal chief and de facto King of the area who created extremely strong democratic and meritocratic institutions. He also based his country on the rule of law, which has contributed to almost non-existent corruption in a state that should be rife with it. The country had the highest GDP growth rate in the world for about 20 years too due to the extremely competent rule of Seretse. Monarchies work best when operating within a democracy in other words, and since then his son has been PM as well, following up on his father's successful rule. The reason why the country has continued to be successful after Khama’s death is due to the way he allowed the democratic process to guide it’s continued development, instead of relying on his family line. Khama himself was a royal, but he saw Botswana needed a Prime minister, so he made the hard choice and established an aristocratic Republic rather than a monarchy for the sake of his country. I do hope Botswana adopts his heirs as monarchs though. Now some may interpret this as an endorsement of divine right. It is not. It is an endorsement of meritocratic values. Seretse was the most educated man available and had a family history of ruling the area. Furthermore, in developing countries absolutism is an affective way to create a state from nothing, as Botswana had, but mustn't be used beyond this stage. The country is beginning to enter a dark age though, with bad inequality and declining morality among other issues, hence why a constitutional monarchy should be established. The philosophical foundation for this will be in the last paragraph.
Developed nations do not work under dictatorships or authoritarian administrations. Russia has recently been going through financial crisis after financial crisis, and turkey is going through a period of hyper-inflation due to a peasant taking control. What's more, this peasant thinks he can re-establish the Ottoman Empire, but is just bringing misery to the region instead. This problem can be seen in autocracies worldwide, and is unlikely to be reversed. Only a select few states (i.e. Singapore) work under this system, but that is due to the majority willingly and enthusiastically embracing this method of rule due to past successes under visionary leaders, and Singapore is a de facto democratic monarchy anyway with Lee Hsien Loong in charge, much in the same vain as Botswana, although these two states are the only two successful examples, and their success has led to other leaders promising that they will act like the Lee’s and Khama’s. They do not. Take the Kim’s. They are the ruling dynasty of North Korea and essentially act as a Middle Ages era European kingdom would. They are truly dreadful, and are emblematic of how most absolute monarchs would end up, sucked into their own greed and ineptitude, and kept buoyant by servile courtiers. This can never be allowed to happen again. The chances of a successful state on this middle are infinitely low, while the chances of failure are infinitely high.
China is always a bad example. State capitalism can only work for so long until the process is so complex that only specialisation enabled by democracy can work effectively. The people need to be able to make their wants known, and under autocracies this is difficult. Democracy is a way of signalling what a nation wants and what it doesn't want, and the People are often right. Populism threatens this but usually democracy is the most effective way of determining the priorities a nation should be pursuing. What’s more, the praise states like China get for planning ahead is premature. The state can often issue vague directives on what should be prioritized, but rapid changes in the situation may prove too great a shock for autocracies to handle. On the other hand capitalist democracies thrive on shocks, and often take full advantage of the opportunities while avoiding the traps, something that cannot be said for autocracies. What’s more, this system often turns politics into a bureaucratic system, which is a massive problem. This is because China is going through a process of bureaucratic chaos at the moment, with the ruling sect embroiled in a brutal battle that often only results in a strongman taking charge, who then proceeds to pack his tribe with lackeys. This is because these individuals often need to guarantee their own position against those who want to take it away. In an autocracy, this is done through ruthless power-play that does not care for administrative competency. In democracies this problem is removed. This is because the people choose once every few years, so the peoples will must be followed, and often the people only want competent rulers. This means leaders, who are themselves often strongmen, must also choose competent lackeys to ensure a successful rule. They also do not have the issue of internal fighting too often since they are elected, so cannot be removed easily if they command the support of the people, which is guaranteed if their rule is competent, unlike in autocracies.
Furthermore Autocracies lie. Since the people do not choose them, they have no connection to the people. This results in opacity in their rule and they often lie to justify their rule to the outside world. They can do this since they control their countries completely by crushing individuality, so the people cannot speak out or organise. Only the state is an individual, so only the state can be organised. This is often why autocracies control enterprise. Business is an expression of individuality, so it must contained to prevent it gaining too much power. We have recently seen this in China and is a common symptom of the paranoia that is built into autocracies. This results in further incentive to lie, as they must retain a monopoly on power and the use of violence. This leads to them using often violent methods to crush their victims to placate the security forces, as this gives them power within the administrative process, and also scares the people into submission, instead of allowing them to prosper.
Democratic monarchies are the best as the monarch must retain the support of the people, so must act in an enlightened manner that benefits the nation, as only a monarch can. This is since monarchies have a comparative advantage on elected heads of state. Since birth monarchs are brought up to lead their people, and are taught how to act and rule in an enlightened fashion. Politicians rule according to what's popular, not what's enlightened. This is excellent for the role of government, for the reasons outlined above, but not for the purpose of leading a nation morally, and vice versa since monarchs rarely have the ability required to govern at an administrative level. Democracy allows the most competent people to reach the top of administration, while monarchy allows the most enlightened to be a moral beacon. Autocracies combine the worst aspects of both. It allows the most morally ambiguous person to reach the top, while only guaranteeing ruthlessness, not competency, in administration, with the extremely rare exception. This is why most absolute monarchs are disasters compared with modern leaders, and also why most dictators are too. This also highlights the shortcomings of aristocratic republics such as Botswana. Over time the aristocracy, like any aristocracy, loses its power in society. However, unlike in monarchies, there is no central institution in which the traditions and families that bind a nation together and guide it onwards can find shelter. This leads to a moral decay and the problem we see with America today. Rampant individualism to an extreme degree which leads to poisonous divisions, and the decay of the moral fibre of society.
Some would say look to Oman for a successful absolute monarchy, or Saudi Arabia. Any gulf monarchy really. These states have only succeeded because of their vast oil wealth. Before this they were underdeveloped slave nations, Oman only had 10km of paved road in 1970 and slavery was still legal and common. The leaders of the states are also often moral voids, especially the Saudis and UAE families. Kidnapping daughters, raping wives, gay orgies, rampant drug use etc. This is the result of them being divorced from their people (which harks back to my point earlier in para 5) so they act how they want, not how they should. In constitutional monarchies the monarchs position is dependent on popularity, so they must embody the nation and its hope, which creates a cycle of continued hope in itself. Meanwhile the Saudis keep their people in poverty and party like heathens while assassinating their critics.
Now, some Absolutists certainly don't agree with the totalitarian tendencies of the current absolute monarchies. Instead, they intend for the monarch to retain absolute power but within a framework that restricts them through unwritten custom while safeguarding the interests of the people. This is not a stable long term strategy. With a monarchy every ruler turns out differently due to a combination of factors such as genetics, teachers, environment etc. This precludes stable long term planning as every ruler is likely to have a different ideological slant, especially in the modern era. This also brings the next issue to light, in that modern autocracies always evolve into surveillance states, making totalitarianism inevitable. We can see this in many modern monarchies, with Saudi and North Korea being the best examples of states that have reached current evolutionary extent of totalitarianism. With other Absolute monarchies such as Oman this process has not reached its end yet. In Oman's case this is due to a leader that did not have totalitarian tendencies but whose heirs at some point will, transforming the state into a surveillance state. At this point totalitarian monarchs then abandon traditional male line primogeniture in favour of a system that allows them to select an heir which closely matches them, as seen with MBS. At this point, the process is complete, and the absolute monarchy is indistinguishable from a totalitarian Republic. This process is both inevitable and irreversible without a serious civil conflict, violent or otherwise.
There are some out there who call constitutional monarchies "Republics with fancy hats". I disagree with this assessment. Constitutional monarchies create a paradox to justify themselves. This is the idea that their illegitimacy gives them legitimacy. If a constitutional monarch were to ever interfere in the political process (i.e. Australia crisis) it would be the end of the monarchy. This is why they work so well. constitutional monarchies have less legitimacy than presidents in equivalent roles as at least the president can claim to be democratically elected. This means the president can interfere in ways the monarch can't and this usually results (ironically) in less democratic countries as a result as presidents dismiss and replace govts without elections far more than monarchies do. What's more, presidents are often politicians, which opens up many problems discussed above. A constitutional monarch is also better since they embody the democratic evolution of a nation, and represent the best remaining traditions that keep that nation sharply distinct from others. This is turn helps foster a sense of national pride and gives the nation an individual to rally around, which is invaluable. In republics they often worship dead men in times of crisis such as Lincoln or documents like the constitution, but one cannot underestimate the power of a living figure to rally around when the need arises, so God Save the Queen. In conclusion, that fancy hat that many say is the dividing line between a monarchy and republic can make all the difference.
Here we can also analyse more in depth why constitutional monarchies work better than republican democracies, and some of the flaws which aggravate those who, often justifiably, dislike the downsides that they can create. The class system is the first and foremost system which constitutional monarchies are often accused of protecting. This is simply untrue. While constitutional monarchies can often be used as anchors for the upper classes to attach themselves to, they do not in themselves perpetuate this system. The class system as known in Europe and Africa evolved from the absolute nature of the monarchies and colonial authorities that ran the areas. In Europe's case we can still see strong familial class systems in Germany, Italy and quite often France outside the metropolitan areas. These are dwarfed by the UK's own class system, but this is simply due to the fact that Britain never underwent any major political shocks after 1689, which cannot be said for the rest of Europe. In Africa we see families and certain groups dominating society, and in India this is the basis of the entire country due to the strong history of class, which was accelerated under the Raj. In America we see a system of capitalist Class divides, with money being the deciding factor. This has made for a far less harmonial class system relative to Europe and other states as it lends no sense of kinship between the different classes. This can also be seen in the racial conflicts within the country, where there is very little kinship between blacks and whites. However, in Scandinavia and Japan, we see very little class divide due to the advanced progressive nature of the states, and what class divide there is is largely harmonial in nature. Abolishing monarchies won't solve a class divide, and while it will allow certain individuals to face trial, overall it won't do anything else. Sacrifices have to be made for the stability of the country, and while that may be tough to bear, it's a well established fact.
We also see the common claim that those with entrenched privilege are protected. Needles to say this isn't true outside the immediate royal family. A friend of mine who happened to be a viscount left Eton in an absolute mess, and ended up homeless and in jail for periods of time. The stress the role confers is enormous, and cannot be seen simply as 'posh people are fine and protected while I have to work'. (As for the fact he went to Eton, that is divorced from the monarchy. Money buys you that, not class. Wealth is inherited and that is a fact in almost all nations) That isn't the case. This does open up an important point though, and that is that the monarch and their family must be careful to avoid falling into scrutiny. Their actions must be inline with the expectations of the nation. If not, then their role is jeopardised as they must retain popular support, and their actions also risk destroying a sense of a national oppotimism, as Andrew's actions have done.
Following on from this, modern absolute monarchies would not be some fairy tale system of government, destined to succeed because God ordained his representatives on earth who know best. Constitutional monarchies are destined to uphold morality in the name of honour, dignity and respect between the different classes and sections in society, while absolute monarchies are destined to destroy it in the pursuit of influence, money, and total control of society through divide and rule or false unity (or both as seen in Islamic countries with Sunnis and Shias). Absolute monarchies would be catastrophic and set the human race back decades, politically, technologically and economically. What’s more, when these 3 factors go into recession, we see the decay of the most important tenet of society, it’s morality. Some would argue that this process proceeds under democracies, but this is only found in democracies without a morally strong constitutional monarch. Some would argue that the encroachment of progressive values is in itself a decay of morality, but I disagree. The encroachment of mainstream progressive values, such as gay, racial and sex based equality is simply an evolution of morality, no less inevitable than an autocratic monarchy becoming totalitarian, and can be seen in Scandinavia. Moral decay is different. This is where the central tenets of society fall apart instead of evolve, and can be seen with rampant drug use, young people engaging in inappropriate behaviour out of uncontrollable and unreasonable rebellion, and adults losing their sense of right and wrong due to perceived empirical truth drawn from what they see as newly OK, instead of seeing the axiomatic morals which have governed and should always govern optimistic societies. In absolute monarchies, much like in autocracies, we see this process occur faster due to the state being based on a system of repression whenever the people outside the elite try to display their will, while constitutional monarchies are based on optimism for the reasons stated earlier. This is since the repression fuels rebellion, which leads ultimately to the destruction of morals and the state itself. The repression seen under former and current feudal and absolute monarchies is inevitable, as also stated earlier. In our modern age this may change due to technology allowing new ways to control the populace and maintain power, but the destruction of morality won't. A veneer can be applied to mask this to the outside world, but the real situation is often undeniable. What's more, absolute monarchies uphold class harmony by representing the connection between the upper and lower classes, and often engage in activities that promote this, such as shooting. The workers beat to get the birds up, and the aristocrats shoot the birds. In-between they talk and this makes issues known. This still occurs in the UK and is why the British countryside is a model society.
Tldr: Don't look at successfully developing states and think "why are they doing so well compared to us. We must be using the wrong system of government. Let's establish an autocracy!". Democracy did it better and faster, while ensuring continued long term success rather than short term rapid growth followed by utter turmoil.
submitted by DiePack123 to monarchism [link] [comments]