I was at the store today and i was playing around with phones. I got the s23 ultra in my hand, and man it was not good. (Hey it’s an opinion, don’t murder me) I get a waaaay better feeling of butteriness and smoothness on my iPhone.
But the moment I touched the nothing phone 1, man it was a relief. I got excited for a moment.
But unfortunately there aren’t any Pixels for me to test and play with so i wanted to ask you.
Pixel Vs. Nothing
Which one should i get?
I mostly care about the smoothness and the display. Also a good camera would be a great option. Not looking for a benchmark crusher.
Btw NP (1) is the cheapest of them all. And pixel 6 has a waaaay bigger price gap with pixel 7 and is also pricier than phone (1). Or should I wait for phone (2)?
And I genuinely want to get out of Apple ecosystem

Pretty much the title. Using LibreOffice Calc 7.5.5.2 on Linux. I've created a bar chart in a spreadsheet, and I would like to add error bars using data from the sheet. At the moment this is basically what I've got:

' Create charts Charts = Doc.Sheets(4+I).Charts Rect1.X = 0 Rect1.Y = 9931 Rect1.Width = 10160 Rect1.Height = 10160 RangeAddress1(0).Sheet = 4+I RangeAddress1(0).StartColumn = 0 RangeAddress1(0).StartRow = 39 RangeAddress1(0).EndColumn = 1 RangeAddress1(0).EndRow = 41 Charts.addNewByName(Cell.String & "_1", Rect1, RangeAddress1(), False, True) Chart1 = Charts.getByName(Cell.String & "_1").EmbeddedObject Chart1.HasMainTitle = True Chart1.Title.String = "Control vs ARAC" Chart1.HasLegend = False Chart1.Diagram.HasYAxisTitle = True Chart1.Diagram.YAxisTitle.String = "Fold Difference" ' Add in error bars; HOW TF DOES THIS WORK Chart1.setPropertyValue(ErrorBarRangePositive, "D40:D42") Chart1.setPropertyValue(ErrorBarRangeNegative, "C40:C42") Chart1.setPropertyValue(ErrorBarStyle, com.sun.star.chart.ErrorBarStyle.FROM_DATA) 

The last three lines are the part where I'm running into trouble. It's not causing any errors, but there is no sign of any effect whatsoever when I add/remove those lines. Clearly I'm missing something here, but I've been staring at this for 2 days and I'm totally stumped. If anyone has any insights into what I'm doing wrong, it would be greatly appreciated

Please don't miss reading these 14 Edicts. If you are a proponent of humanity, you will find great enjoyment in reading them.
The Edicts of Ashoka consist of 33 inscriptions commissioned by Ashoka the Great, an Indian ruler. These edicts were meticulously engraved on pillars, large stones, and cave walls, making them accessible for public reading. Despite being created over 22 centuries ago, the principles of humanity conveyed in these edicts demonstrate remarkable advancement for their time.
​
Edict I
King Ashoka, has caused this Dhamma edict to be written. Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice. Formerly, in the kitchen of King Ashoka, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of the Dhamma edict, only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer, are killed, And in time, not even these creatures will be killed.
Edict II
…everywhere has King Ashoka, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals. Wherever medical herbs suitable for humans or animals are not available, I have had them imported and grown. Wherever medical roots or fruits are not available I have had them imported and grown. Along roads I have had wells dug and trees planted for the benefit of humans and animals.
Edict III
Decree concerning inspection tours by Ashoka's officials to instruct the populace in Dhamma and policy of non-violence and benevolence toward all.
Edict IV
Decree concerning non-violence. Notes how heavenly signs were absent in the past when the king pursued violent means to achieve his ends but now, having adopted a policy of non-violence, heavenly signs are appearing again as celestial approval. Discusses the importance of Dhamma and right behavior toward all. Instructs his successors to adhere to Dhamma and uphold Ashoka's vision.
Edict V
King Ashoka, speaks thus: To do good is difficult. One who does good first does something hard to do. I have done many good deeds, and, if my sons, grandsons, and their descendants up to the end of the world act in like manner, they too will do much good. But whoever amongst them neglects this, they will do evil. Truly, it is easy to do evil. [The remainder of the edict addresses compassion for convicts and their families and the proper application of and instruction in Dhamma].
Edict VI
King Ashoka, speaks thus: In the past, state business was not transacted nor were reports delivered to the king at all hours. But now I have given this order, that at any time, whether I am eating, in the women's quarters, the bed chamber, the chariot, the Palanquin, in the park, or wheresoever, reporters are to be posted with instructions to report to me the affairs of the people so that I might attend to these affairs wherever I am. [The remainder of this edict emphasizes Ashoka's availability to all, how he intends to settle debates in council chambers quickly, and his commitment to the welfare of all his subjects].
Edict VII
King Ashoka, desires that all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart. But people have various desires and various passions, and they may practice all of what they should or only a part of it. But one who receives great gifts yet is lacking in self-control, purity of heart, gratitude and firm devotion, such a person is mean.
Edict VIII
In the past, kings used to go out on pleasure tours during which there was hunting and other entertainment. But ten years after Beloved-of-the-Gods had been coronated, he visits and give gifts of gold to the aged, visits to people in the countryside, instructing them in Dhamma, and discussing Dhamma with them as is suitable. It is this that delights King Ashoka, and is, as it were, another type of revenue.
Edict IX
Decree concerning proper and improper ceremonies. Ashoka claims that many ceremonies – those engaged in without proper understanding of Dhamma – are “vulgar and worthless” but Dhamma ceremonies, by those fully informed, bear the greatest fruit. He describes such ceremonies as involving “proper behavior towards servants and employees, respect for teachers, restraint towards living beings, and generosity” as well as right behavior toward relatives, friends, and neighbors. He concludes by noting how, even if Dhamma may seem to have no effect on this world, it does in the next but that when Dhamma is clearly seen to achieve its purpose, it does good in both this life and the one to come.
Edict X
King Ashoka, does not consider glory and fame to be of great account unless they are achieved through having my subjects respect Dhamma and practice Dhamma, both now and in the future. For this alone does King Ashoka, desire glory and fame. And whatever efforts King Ashoka, is making, all of that is only for the welfare of the people in the next world, and that they will have little evil. And being without merit is evil. This is difficult for either a humble person or a great person to do except with great effort, and by giving up other interests. In fact, it may be even more difficult for a great person to do.
Edict XI
King Ashoka, speaks thus: There is no gift like the gift of the Dhamma, (no acquaintance like) acquaintance with Dhamma, (no distribution like) distribution of Dhamma, and (no kinship like) kinship through Dhamma. And it consists of this: proper behavior towards servants and employees, respect for mother and father, generosity to friends, companions, relations, Brahmans and ascetics, and not killing living beings. Therefore, a father, a son, a brother, a master, a friend, a companion or a neighbor should say: “This is good, this should be done.” One benefits in this world and gains great merit in the next by giving the gift of Dhamma.
Edict XII
Decree concerning religious tolerance and mutual respect among adherents of different faiths. Ashoka condemns the practice of elevating one's own religion at the expense of someone else's: “Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought 'Let me glorify my own religion', only harms his own religion…One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others.” The edict concludes with the admonition that an individual's religion grows through Dhamma and so all faiths are improved by tolerance and understanding.
Edict XIII
Famous decree concerning the Kalinga War in which Ashoka describes the aftermath of the campaign, repents, and describes how he now “conquers” people through Dhamma and the universal love and understanding which binds people together and leads to harmonious existence. It reads, in part: “King Ashoka, conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation. One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas…Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-gods considers to be the best conquest…I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this world and the next.
Edict XIV
King Ashoka, has had these Dhamma edicts written in brief, in medium length, and in extended form. Not all of them occur everywhere, for my domain is vast, but much has been written, and I will have still more written. And also, there are some subjects here that have been spoken of again and again because of their sweetness, and so that the people may act in accordance with them. If some things written are incomplete, this is because of the locality, or in consideration of the object, or due to the fault of the scribe.
​
Taken from: https://atheism-vs-islam.com

Like the monster verse is great but I really think if they got a new director and tried to do a more serious Godzilla remake (kind of like 2022s The Batman) and go for a darker tone and they could build up the suspense of Godzilla with a unique backstory.
I just feel like it’s abit too far fetched after Godzilla vs Kong. The original Toho films were more simple monster vs monster and not Star Wars hollow earth vibes

...blows.
Has anyone else had problems? I never had the battery bulge issue, but I've had to replace my PDM at least 6 times in the past 2 years due to their batteries not holding a charge. It works great for the first few months, then drops like a stone. Yes, I'm using the official charger.
Also, has anyone bought/installed replacement NUU batteries from the dark interwebs vs replacing the whole PDM via Omnipod direct?

Hello Christians and others. I am someone raised in the Christian Church who has long defended its good qualities while also recognizing that sometimes it has been perverted to evil use. Over the last years I have met more people whose lives were seriously damaged by growing up in fundamentalism and I am seeing a type of Christianity that is rising that is being used to justify a lot of dislike for social progress and to further a mandate of a Christian politican and social agenda. I do NOT think this represents the majority of Christianity, but I am interested in studying where this theology is coming from.
I started looking at Ruby Ridge and the religious belief system of the Weavers and others in their world in Idaho and elsewhere. I chose that because I see a line between some groups that I am looking at now and the 90's militia movement and other Western prepper ideologies of that time. According to the main book on Ruby Ridge, the Weavers began a religious study group in their hometown in Iowa and were very influenced by the Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsey. I am familiar with the book being hugely important to the youth Jesus People Movement from the 70's, but a lot of those people were basically hippies who did not follow the same religious path as the Weavers. One thing that really struck me about the Weavers is that they really ended up worshipping Old Testament Yahweh more than the teachings of Christ. I also see some of that in modern Christian movements that teach a lifestyle and world view that seems to draw upon the OT with little reliance to the NT aside from Revelations and some of Paul's more extreme commandments. Jesus does not seem to get a lot of play. In addition there is also a lot of emphasis by some groups on end times prophecy and signs and other things that Lindsey really popularized. The Yahweh vs Christ thing is interesting to me because it sort of explains why there is such a great disparity between certain Christian world views.
It made me think about how these religions have evolved since the 70's. Did young people involved with the Jesus People Movement stay with Christianity as they aged(not all, obviously)? What types of denominations were they attracted to? Did many of them become Jesus yuppies and part of the moral majority and born again movement in the 80's? Or was that a different group of people? Are the modern Seven Mountains and Quiverfull and Dominionists and Hillsdale and even Q type Christians influenced by Lindsey? What other movements were influenced by this book? Are there still groups of hippie Jesus People out there?
It seems like this book was hugely influential in its time and like many books on religion it was interpreted in different ways by different people. I'm curious as to the different places that these teachings led people. I've always been interested in the Jesus People movement and this made me think more about where it went because it really seemed to fade away and I don't know if it got folded into the born again movement, into other denominations, or if it was just a flash like a lot of spiritual movements of that time.
​
I'm asking this from a serious perspective of trying to understand and follow threads of theology and not so much about current politics and what people's own personal beliefs are.
I'd appreciate people's knowledge and perspectives on some of the things I have raised. Sorry this was so long but I wanted to write clearly and respectfully.
​
TLDR: was Hal Lindsey an influence on the rise of current right wing religious movements and what happened to the Jesus hippies who he influenced in the 70's?

Been out for a few years but have only recently become more interested in exploring my sexual nature. Went on a few dates with a boy whose info/status I didn't bother confirming (his friend set us up on a blind date). Fooled around and had a great time (nothing penetrative and nobody actually came.. wop wop).
Now I'm spiralling though for no good reason. I know the HIV transmission risk is next to nothing, and while everything else is curable, obviously I don't want to get it.
Some questions for you gays to see how everyone else handles it:

1. How many sexual encounters a month would you have before considering prep? I've historically been a chaste woman so my doctor hasn't seen the need.
2. How do you handle things like "oh we're having fun and we're naked and giving head blah blah" but not anal sex in terms of partner status?
3. What sorts of things do you look for when deciding if you're comfortable fooling around or sleeping with someone? (I.e., do you ask for MyChart test results, is a verbal "negative" good enough)
4. Do you have different standards for HIV tests vs other STDs?
5. Any other nuggets of wisdom you'd want to share?

This has obviously been a good learning experience about what I am and am not comfortable with, but also looking to grow and have fun. Just trying to strike a balance.
Thanks for your time!

If you only have a few minutes, here are some key considerations on valuations:
Valuations matter (of course). Venture is driven by a power law where a very small number of companies return most of the profits, but if the fund relies on the extremely rare $10B+ exits just to return the fund, you might be relying far too much on luck.
An attractive company isn’t necessarily an attractive investment. Know the difference. To achieve venture returns, you will likely have to pass on great companies because the valuation is too high.
But, get into the right companies. Without large exits, you’re unlikely to achieve venture returns. The spread between valuations for “cheap” and “expensive” companies is often much smaller than return multiples from outliers.
Have a clear strategy for valuation. And, stick to it. Routinely overpaying undermines your strategy. It’s OK to make exceptions but be thoughtful and well-reasoned in the decision.

What drives valuations?

Valuations carry information. They tell a story about the company, demand from investors, and often a reflection of the overall market.
Here’s a good breakdown from Semil Shah on what drives valuations:

“A valuation during a funding round for these types of companies are driven by: Investors’ willingness to pay (the most important driver!). Competition among investors hungry to get into a deal. Demand for companies of similar quality, scope, scale, (and) market. A host of other items like team, technology, etc.”

Mahdi @ Exponent on what drives valuations

Exponent is an early-stage fund investing in founders tackling Payments, Infrastructure, Security, App Software.
When setting valuation, some fund managers triangulate several drivers of valuations:

• Company: Team, traction, market opportunity and other company factors
• Market: Entry-valuation comps and other market factors
• Fund model: Entry-valuation ranges/guardrails/fund size/threshold to return the fund

Mahdi also discusses the difference between the attractiveness of a company and the attractiveness of an investment. Not all great companies make great investments.
More from Mahdi:

“On valuations for pre-PMF companies, we triangulate it: Exit opportunity (more intrinsic valuation-ish): We think of it as ‘if everything goes really right (the pre-parade), what could the company reasonably exit at?’. This is meaningfully based off the market opportunity (we are clear to describe it for "known, existing markets" vs. "new, fast growth markets"), competition, etc. That implies a certain amount of revenue, gross margin, and an exit multiple on it. Backing out from there - what should the entry be to achieve a 100x or more outcome for the fund? Next-twelve months (NTM) Comps: Where do we see entry valuations trending next twelve months and is this in line with that? Fund level guardrails: We generally don't believe pre-PMF should be above $15M post (some sectors more, some less). We want the fund average/median to be at or below this; we are open to exceptions, but they have to be crystal clear as to why they are the exception.We increase valuation commensurate with "de-risking" of clear milestones with team, PMF/ velocity/traction, market and exit opportunity. There's also a clear difference for us between the attractiveness of a company vs. the attractiveness of an investment (company + valuation + risk) and the above is focused on the valuation side for pre-PMF teams. We value post-PMF teams more precisely. At the end of the day - the core long-term drivers for all valuations are: Growth of free cash flow (and the drivers for it) Risk of free cash flow. The above helps us to think clearly about both aspects. If this company is humming with $1-1.5M of revenue or another highly implicative traction milestone, where would the Series A be priced at? We typically want the seed vs. Series A delta to be 2.5-3x. Early-stage investors should be compensated for the risk they’re taking and being first advocates.” — Mahdi Raza (Exponent)

Are valuations efficient?

Investors are either price-setters or price-takers for every investment they make. Most commonly, lead investors “set” valuation in negotiation with the founders and follow-on investors invest at that valuation, although this isn’t always the case.
You can’t typically set valuations unless you’re putting in ~50% of the round or more, are the first check-in, or investing off-cycle (i.e. not a part of a formal round). If you’re not setting the valuation, you need to have a point of view on “Is the company worth what the market is saying they’re worth?” This leads us to the question “Is early-stage venture capital efficient?”
While perspectives differ, Abe Othman from AngelList’s Quant Fund has a unique vantage point on this topic:

“One of the most stunning things I've found about early-stage venture capital is that the market is relatively efficient. Put another way, founders convert positive signals about themselves and their companies into higher valuations that capture most (but not all) of the boon from those signals. Venture "alpha", if it exists at all, will really only be in overlooked places: That's why we found that the best schools to invest in are UW, Waterloo, and Brown, not Harvard, MIT, and Stanford. I would say, then, that within like a 2-3x band all valuations are probably "the same" – they don't in fact matter since you're probably paying for an informative signal. Beyond that, valuations are only worth it if the exit could be that much higher, and similarly, companies playing in a smaller space can be equally deserving of investment at lower valuations.” — Abe Othman (AngelList)

Do valuations matter?

Venture managers are responsible for driving venture returns. This is ultimately a function of the investor’s check size, entry valuation, and potentially follow-on investments to maintain or increase ownership. All things being equal, higher valuations cut fund returns. A fund with great companies but very minimal ownership may yield average returns or worse.
Here’s more from the Spearhead blog on how entry prices impact venture fund returns:

“Valuations for pre-traction companies between 2005-2010 were $1-5M pre-money for the first non-friends-and-family round. Funds that invested during this time period made 4x-100x returns. These valuations moved to $4-6M pre-money after 2010, with some demo days in the $8-10M range. This likely cut returns by 2/3 or more. You can’t build a portfolio of pre-traction investments at $8-10M pre-money and expect to make a venture return. On occasion, you can make an exception, but you can’t do all of your investments at this price. You will have to pass on great teams because the valuation is too high. You will have to pass on future iconic technology companies because the price is too high. But passing on a future iconic company at a $40M pre-money gives you the capital to take 10 shots on goal with unknown companies at $4M pre-money.”

Anamitra @ Afore on why valuations matter

Afore invests $500K or $3M checks into pre-everything founders, managing $300M in AUM across three funds.
Venture capital returns are driven by outliers, but it’s impossible to predict the exit value of an investment. Anamitra at Afore talks about the importance of focusing on what you can control: The entry valuation and why it matters.
More from Anamitra:

“If you are an early-stage investor in a company that exits at a $1B or $10B, then you can argue that it doesn't matter whether your entry price was $10M or $50M because you'd do very well. It's obviously better if you could invest at $10M but you'd still 20X if you invested at $50M. This means that if you have high conviction in the outcome, you should not be deterred by small deltas in the entry price. However, most investors don't know how big the outcome could be at the time of initial investment. I'd argue that it might be impossible to know. So, the outcome is unpredictable. However, the investor does have some control over the entry ownership. That's predictable. And since realized returns is a function of outcome size multiplied by exit ownership, the goal should be to maximize entry ownership. You can get high ownership by targeting a low entry valuation, increasing the investment check size, or both. So entry valuation does matter greatly. But it's a balance, because at the end of the day, high ownership in $0 outcome is still $0.” — Anamitra Banerji (Afore)

Julian @ Julian Capital on why valuations matter

Julian Capital is an early-stage fund investing in frontier teach, marketplaces, and B2B SaaS.

“A low valuation won’t get me to invest in a deal, but a high valuation absolutely can get me to walk from a deal.” — Julian Shapiro (Julian Capital)

Approaches to valuations

We collected approaches from fund managers on how they approach valuations. Our goal here was to collect perspectives from a diverse set of funds across fund size and investment focus.

How Rick Yang @ NEA approaches valuations

NEA are investing out of an >$3B VC fund across stages.
The traditional VC model, popular among funds with a concentrated strategy, is optimized around ownership targets. This approach prioritizes ownership, over valuation, although they’re related as funds are finite in size. Rick Yang talks about NEA’s ownership-driven approach to investing.
Note: See more in the “Have a target ownership” section of this post on portfolio construction.
More from Rick:

“I am a believer that fund size and the associated business model driven by that is a big factor in how to think about valuations and deal structures for new prospective company investments. We care more about ownership than valuation for new investments in some sense, although those two things are coupled very closely together. Especially when you normalize historical averages for liquidity and public market valuations, ownership matters a lot when we are considering a new investment. The other part of the ownership equation other than valuation is dollars invested. That becomes a discussion around portfolio construction and the risk/reward with a specific company and space. And of course competition for the round sometimes dictates ultimate valuation, and it's also often why we end up sitting out rounds even if we do really like the team and company. Not the simplest answer, but we like to be thoughtful about structuring initial investments since each NEA Partner isn’t making many new investments per year.” — Rick Yang (NEA)

How Hunter Walk @ Homebrew approaches valuations

Homebrew is an evergreen fund investing primarily in pre-seed, seed and Series A rounds.
Like NEA, Homebrew takes an ownership-driven approach to investing. They view valuation as an important guardrail in evaluating an investment opportunity. Hunter also breaks down their framework for evaluating an investment opportunity when achieving their target ownership exceeds their maximum check size, and the “opportunity cost” of doing so resulting in less diversification.
More from Hunter:

“In our historically concentrated approach to seed stage investing, hitting our ownership target mattered more than valuation but valuation was an incredibly important guardrail in evaluating an opportunity, for it has great impact on the company and our portfolio management overall. We set a ‘max check size’ for our initial investments which was meant to get us, on average, 10-15% ownership and if held to, would overall guide us to an investment period that provided both time and company diversification for the fund. It also drove our reserves strategy. So in any negotiation, whether we wrote our ‘max check’ to get the target ownership was a factor of round size, company stage, and so forth. But we would rarely walk away from an opportunity based on valuation if it fits within that target ownership and check-size box. In situations where targeting the 10-15% ownership would have required a commitment larger than our ‘max check size’ we had to decide whether (a) the opportunity here was worth 1.5 or 2 slots - ie are we going to make one fewer investment out of the fund in order to do this one or (b) would we stick with our check size but take lower ownership as a result or (c) walk away. Of these three, (c) was the most common decision for a variety of reasons that were about being consistent in our strategy and product offering.” — Hunter Walk (Homebrew)

How Nikhil @ Footwork approaches valuations

Footwork is a $175M fund leading rounds at the early stage focused on Seed and Series A.
Another strategy among venture managers is back-solving the valuation from the exit value needed for an investment to return the fund, accounting for maximum check size. Nikhil at Footwork talks about their framework for using this approach. For investors who aren’t setting valuations, the same method can be used to check if the valuation fits with your fund model.
Another important consideration for investors is if the valuation sets the company up for a successful round in the future. The higher the valuation for this round, the higher the valuation hurdle it needs to clear for the next round.
More from Nikhil:

“Valuations do matter to us, to a degree. We have to believe that the valuation makes sense relative to the stage of the business and that the valuation sets the company up for future fundraising success (i.e. the valuation isn't so high that it won't be cleared at the next round). The other calculus that informs our thinking on valuation is how our check size and ownership can lead to a return-the-fund investment for us. What do we have to believe for this single investment to return the fund? Our first fund is $175M, so if we're investing $5M to own 20% of a company, assume that we'll be diluted down to 12% over time, the company has to get to $1.5B or more of exit value for that investment to return the fund. We use this framework and work backwards to the valuation (in the example's case, $25M post-money), check size ($5M), and ownership (20%), that we believe could achieve that goal.” My general principle is that valuation is right when it's mutually disagreeable; that is, both company and venture firm feel a bit uncomfortable about where it lands.” — Nikhil Basu Trivedi (Footwork)

Jonathan Hsu @ Tribe Capital approaches valuations

Tribe capital invests in companies in $1M-$20M of annualized revenue raising at valuations between $30-300M with round sizes in the $5M-50M range.
Venture managers want to ensure that the following round is as low risk as possible. Valuation is one part of that – the higher the entry valuation, the higher the valuation hurdle the company needs to clear for the next round to register a markup. This is an important consideration in the valuation strategy many fund managers take.
More from Jonathan:

“At a high level, I think about valuation in terms of what-needs-to-happen-next round. For example, say you are at X revenue/scale and raising $Y (because you're burning $Z). Then, presumably, if you raise it, once you spend it, you will be at some new scale and will need to raise some new larger amount because of your presumably higher burn. We want to make sure that the following round is as low risk as possible and the current valuation is a part of that equation. More specifically, if you raise at a low valuation now and you exceed your expectations, it will make it much easier to raise the next round. If you raise at a high valuation now and exceed expectations, you may be at a disadvantage in fundraising because the prior round set a precedent that will be hard to match. In some sense, fundraising for startups is like a frog jumping between lily pads until they get big enough that capital sources become more continuous. We want to have a good feel for the size and distance of the next lily pad and your odds of hitting it. Current valuation is a big piece of determining that.” — Jonathan Hsu (Tribe Capital)

How Eric Bahn @ Hustle Fund approaches valuations

Hustle Fund is investing into pre-seed software startups out of its $46M fund.
The majority of entire fund returns tend to come from single or a few "home run" investments. Venture fund managers like Eric keep that in mind while approaching valuations. Central to their approach to valuations is giving each investment the ability to return the fund. They ask themselves: “Can this investment be a 100x return?”
More from Eric:

“We have a simple approach to how we think about valuations: At the post-money valuation that we can invest in a founder's company, do we think that this team can 100x? As a simple example: say we invest in Vedika's company at a $1M post-money valuation, do we think that this founder, in her given market, can get to a $100M exit outcome (IPO, acquisition, etc)? If the answer is YES, then we are excited to invest! And that is somewhat rare. This simple approach to portfolio math works for small, pre-seed funds like ours (sub $50M AUM for the given fund) because it means that even small checks we write have the chance to return the entire fund. I don't think it works with larger AUM funds, where there requires a lot more financial engineering to get to fund returning opportunities, and the expected multiple tends to be a lot lower the more you subsequently invest into your winners.” — Eric Bahn (Hustle Fund)

Why Terrence Rohan @ Otherwise Fund doesn’t focus on valuations

Otherwise Fund is a small, early-stage fund focused on seed and Series A (they don’t lead rounds).
Power law returns dominate venture. Another perspective among venture managers investing in the earlier stage is getting into the right company is more important than getting in at the right valuation. Of course, there are not always mutually exclusive. When they’re in conflict, fund managers like Terrence Rohan first optimize for securing their investment and then for ownership.
More from Terrence:

“My short answer: I do not focus on valuation. I focus on finding the right companies, and then consider allocation or valuation; given this, I will never pass on valuation (early stage). My longer answer: If you look at early-stage venture capital over the past few decades, the power law of returns (i.e., a handful of companies drive the majority of the returns) may be the data's defining pattern. Given this, my primary heuristic is to get into the right company. If you are in the right companies, even with subpar ownership and high valuations, you will have top returns. Once you secure a place on the cap table, I then try to optimize for allocation – but this is a secondary consideration, and will never gate an investment. This logic holds for early-stage companies, and price becomes more important the later stage you go.” — Terrence Rohan (Otherwise Fund)

How Linda Xie @ Scalar thinks about valuations

Scalar is a ~$50M fund focused on investing in pre-seed and seed stage crypto companies (non-lead).
Linda at Scalar believes that passing on a company based on valuation, as long as it falls within a reasonable range, is a missed opportunity. Of course, this has limits as valuations serve as important fund guardrails. She highlights how too high of a valuation at the current round increases the risk of a company raising its next round.
Here’s Paul Graham on the topic:

“Valuation matters far, far less than the decision of whether to invest or not. The spread between bargain and outrageous startup valuations can't be more than 5x, in a world where the best investments can return 1,000x.”

More from Linda:

“We are typically less sensitive to valuations at these early stages. If we have a strong belief in the team and what they’re building, I feel it’s a missed opportunity to pass as long as the valuation is in a reasonable range since we're ultimately aiming for major hits in the long run. There’s only been a handful of pre-seed and seed stage deals I've wanted to do but passed solely due to valuation. A major consideration if the round is priced too high at pre-seed and seed is making sure it’s not too difficult for the founder to raise future rounds so I will mention this to the founder as a consideration and many have taken that into account.” — Linda Xie (Scalar Capital)

How Ryan Hoover @ Weekend Fund approaches valuations

Weekend Fund is a ~$21M fund investing $200-400K checks in pre-seed/seed rounds (non-lead).
The macro climate is outside of any single fund’s control and an investor’s job is to deploy capital over a reasonable amount of time. Managers can influence valuations but the market will have the largest influence on the portfolio outside of significant strategic changes.
More from Ryan:

“Weekend Fund started in 2017. Our first fund's median entry price was ~$7M post-money. Since then, market valuations have climbed. The equivalent companies are raising at 2-3x higher prices. As an investor, we have to ‘play the ball on the court’ (a phrase I believe I first heard from Sarah Tavel at Benchmark) and recognize that credible founders are looking for a fair or favorable deal, and have options. But that doesn't mean we don't care about the valuation. They matter. We focus on meeting founders early and investing at sub-$10M post-money valuations. Every company we back should have the opportunity to return our fund (or more) if they achieve a $1B+ exit. That said, we aren't overly dogmatic and will flex up to participate in promising opportunities. It’s more important that our overall portfolio aligns with our strategy and model. Occasionally founders will award the fund with advisor shares to get us to our ownership target (and effectively lower our entry price). This only works because we have a relatively small fund size to return and if founders value our partnership.” — Ryan Hoover (Weekend Fund)

Advice for fund managers on valuations

We asked experienced fund managers for advice they have for emerging fund managers on approaching valuation.

Have a clear point of view on valuations (and defend it)

“Now matter the approach, it is important for new managers to have a clear point of view on valuations, and be able to defend it. The safest philosophy (i.e. the most accepted by LPs) is to be valuation sensitive and have a concentrated portfolio.” — Terrence Rohan (Otherwise Fund)

Compare your level of conviction to the price the market is setting

“The ‘valuation question’ is one that comes up frequently in our discussions with the emerging managers we back via Screendoor (where we will invest up to 10% of a fund’s target raise and bring them into a community of investors ongoing for these types of questions). While situations can differ, my general rule is that the market determines the price, so you have to kind of decide whether your conviction in a company is equal to, greater, or less than price the market is telling you they are ‘worth.’” — Hunter Walk (Homebrew)

Be disciplined to ensure you can hit a minimum portfolio size

“It’s a power law business so an EM wants to be able to show the quality of their access, picking, and winning. Having hard and fast ceilings on what you’re willing to pay, or trying to over focus on the upper bound of your ownership target too early in your venture lifecycle might make it tougher to prove selection success. So don’t routinely overpay or outbid, especially when you don’t believe in the company as much as the market does, but potential LPs will be more interested in the number of successful investments you picked than your entry price in them. Just maintain enough discipline to ensure you can hit a minimum portfolio size." — Hunter Walk (Homebrew)

Don’t over-engineer your fund model (at least at the early stage)

“We have institutions, family offices, and high net worths as investors across our three funds. Rarely do we field questions that are onerous about our fund's mathematical model. Given that we raise relatively small fund sizes, and that pre-seed is more about an LP's belief in the talent of the GP – I wouldn't worry too much about over-engineering your portfolio model. You should have a model that you follow, and you need to explain it—but pre-seed is too early a category to model for absolute accuracy, in my opinion. Late-Stage funds however have a much higher expectation of portfolio math by LPs, and I think that is warranted.” — Eric Bahn (Hustle Fund)

Valuation negotiations can reveal a lot

“Besides the math of it all, valuation negotiations can tell you a lot about what matters to the founders, the type of relationship they want to have with their investors, and the goals they need to achieve to complete successful next financing.” — Hunter Walk (Homebrew)

I've been trying to repair some damage to my home .
Long story short, my sill plate and studs are rotten on one of my garage walls.
I'm thankful that my father does general construction work as does a friend of mine. However neither of them are licensed as such and only know the how and not the why. I've been replacing the sill plate and studs after using pole jacks to hold the joists and support the weight while I'm replacing studs.
The previous home owner obviously did the this will work mentality and I'm finding so much wrong that I want to pull everything and start fresh. Starting with this major repair and continuing with moving electrical wires and ensuring I have proper power for what's in the circuit vs what I have now. I can't run a miter saw and a fan without tripping a breaker
I've been looking at this ICC
But I'm wondering what else I need to get a better heads up and understanding. I've seen products at menards such as the code check 9th Ed but it's seems like its missing things or it's just bullet points without the explanations.
Any help/advice would be great!

Hello everyone. The time has come to spay our girl. She’s just over a year and We’ve allowed her to have two heats. she is in very good health. I’m curious what everyone’s experiences have been with this procedure. I’m now debating traditional vs. Laparoscopy. Any advice, experiences (positive or negative) will be greatly appreciated :)

With the recent news that a potential consortium of players may boycott their NIL being included due to the $ amount being too low, I propose this as viable options and am curious what the community thinks.
HOW REAL ARE THE PLAYERS, REALLY?
As great as it could/would be to have a roster full of real players on day 1 so we can play as our favorite players and give them virtual glory - real players in a college game is not cental to the overall experience. When we talk about building a dynasty, we do not talk about making sure Jake Plaster, 3-star QB out of Dunedin, FL, who is going to be a true frosh at Florida Atlantic this year, wins a Heisman. We talk about turning FAU into a ACC or SEC powerhouse.
Don't get me wrong, the story we could create with Jake Plaster would be a fun one. But if you're not already a FAU fan, or from Dunedin, FL, would you know if I just made this guy up? Because I did. The actual player is Luke Rucker, 3-star QB out of Sanford, FL.
If we had real rosters with the game, in any given dynasty a maximum of 5 "real" players are going to win the Heisman. Most of us will play for 10, 12, 15, 30 years of a dynasty. Being able to watch the real Luke Rucker do well in college football might be cool if we did something great with him. Or he could be a total flop, transfer to a FCS team after his frosh year, convert to Safety, and end up a sales executive for John B. Stetson hat company in 10 years.
​
THE FOCUS IS THE SCHOOL, NOT THE PLAYERS
What I think we want out of our college football game is that FAU feels like FAU, and Alabama feels like Alabama.
I'm a pretty big college football fan, have been for the better part of 30 years. I'm a Mizzou guy, was at school there in the 90s when Larry Smith was the coach and Corby Jones was our QB and we played in some great games. I was a season ticket holder with my dad for the entire Gary Pinkel era, I earned a reputation among Mizzou online communities for making highlight videos of Mizzou's games from 2006-2010ish, and even contributed a bit to the beginning of www.rockmnation.com with Bill Connelly before Rock M became a part of SB Nation's huge surge and Bill Connelly became the force of nature he is.
I say all of that to say that I don't have a clue who is on Alabama's roster without looking it up. I can name a few players, sure, but I have no idea really. And I'm willing to bet we're all in this boat - we know who some of the big players are, but if you're going to start a new dynasty with Troy you MIGHT know one of their players unless you're already a Troy fan.
What I do know about Alabama is that they should have as much talent on the field as any team in college football. I know Bryant-Denny Stadium is huge, and should be sold out for every game, and have a sea of crimson and cream other than the visiting fan sections in the seats. I know their chants, I know their fight songs, I know they have good looking cheerleaders because it's the south, and I know they expect to win every game they play.
And that's what CFB24 should be aiming at. NIL of the real players isn't icing on the cake. It's not even sprinkles on the icing. It's getting rainbow sprinkles instead of all one color.
​
ROSTER PARAMETERS ARE THE ANSWER
CFB24 and beyond, just like its predecessors, will be great in part if the game is good at generating a balance of realistic fictional players for years to come. If we can't get that, then the rest of this is all meaningless.
In the past, and especially those of us old enough to remember the days even before DT Linder, etc., either named the rosters ourselves or just played with WR #81 for a couple of years. And just like one of my above paragraphs pointed out, it didn't matter that we didn't know his real name because we didn't know his real name anyway. He may have been just like the real WR #81 on that team, but honestly we have no idea. And it was fine because the game was fun.
So, making the assumption that the game is capable of creating balanced, realistic, fictional players - lean into it.
The game, at startup, should create fictional rosters for every single team. Every one of us will get a different roster to start. Each player will have a name, height, weight, skin tone, number, hometown, abilities, style, uniform combo, etc. But it's procedurally generated from the start, so any similarities will be purely coincidental and will never repeat.
Each team can be hardcoded for year 1 to have certain parameters their roster should meet, and it will make schools feel authentic from the start.
Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, Ohio State, etc., should be full of players that were recruited as 4-star and 5-star players out of HS, with 3-star players filling the depth chart. You can easily find data from the past 10+ years showing what a typical class breakdown looks like for schools to break it down to what % of the roster is RS SR, SR, RS JR, JR, RS SO, SO, RS FR, FR. What % of the roster is a certain position to meet their current play style. What % of the roster is from home state, vs neighboring states, vs the rest of the country (which will help make Pipeline States feel accurate for recruiting).
So when you start your game, and you get a QB1 at USC named Michael Moss, wearing #5, that is a RS SO, standing 6'3" weighing 225 lbs, is from Las Vegas, NV, is a 86 OVR and looks like a new version of Cam Newton, how many of you are going to take to the streets because "BUT THAT'S NOT CALEB WILLIAMS!"
Of course it's not Caleb Williams. But he's a stud QB at USC, the band is playing 'Fight On' as he runs out of the tunnel and the Trojan is stabbing his sword into midfield, thousands of USC fans have 2 fingers in the air, and you're about to put a beating on UCLA. You're already trying to recruit his replacement because Michael Moss is leading the Heisman Hopefuls for you this season, and as a RS SO he's sure to go Pro after the year you're having with him. And that 5-star Athlete is going to make a great QB.
And by year 2 the rosters are 25% fiction anyway.
I'd say just lean into it and start them fictional from day 1.
The most important thing we can get is the schools are represented accurately and believably. It's not about the players, and honestly never has been.

I had this client with a Maltese with a very impressive thick full drop coat, he came in every week for a brush out. Sounds great, right? Except he didn’t do a single bit of maintenance at home between appointments. The poor (thirteen year old!!) thing took an hour+ just of detangling every time, even with top tier detangling treatments in the bath, even with me cutting or shaving out the proper mats and was terrified and hated it the entire time. Crying and attempting biting non-stop. Owner is aware, says “oh yeah he hates it heads up.”
He always came in absolutely soaked in and reeking of piss, teeth painful and rotting out, absolutely disgusting. Abundantly clear that this owner couldn’t give less of a shit about the dog beyond him having long hair.
Also, every single step of the process was always a test. He had a laid back affect, but he was clearly just trying to needle and push every boundary. In so many ways.
Every time at checkout he tried to give me $5 less than the total (and of course never tipped). Like you have a dog you’re choosing to spend $200 a month on to keep his hair long. Clearly $5 is not a significant amount of money for you. I already was giving him a discount by giving him a flat rate vs. my hourly fees since he was on a weekly schedule too.
I do kennel-free grooming, one on one start to finish as much as possible, so I ask that clients pick up promptly, with an extra charge if the dog is still here 30 minutes past the service being completed, and I give a notification 10 minutes in advance with the option for clients to request more advanced notice if they need it. Every single time he shows up as close as possible to the 30 minute mark. 40 minutes total. He lives two streets down from me.
Yesterday he handed me cash, $5 short again, and looked smug when I didn’t immediately correct it as usual. Probably thought he’d worn me down. Quickly turned to a surprised pikachu face when I told him he needs to find another groomer.
Good riddance.

I got Street Fighter 6, my first fighting game in a decade. I sat down with it, and started playing and noticed the controls were a bit different. "Oh, there is classic, modern and dynamic, cool!" I went to classic, as that 'felt' familiar but soon got that ache in my hands I remember all to well from playing SF games back in the day, when I would get blisters from playing on a handheld controller. So I went to modern and wow does that help. It makes these games playable for a person like me.
Enter my friend, who loves these kinds of games. He's visibly mad that I'm using modern, like it's some sort of badge of honor to have to contort your hands to play a game 'correctly'. It's the old man saying when he was young he had to walk uphill both ways so I have to do it too. He gave me a line about how they do things in tournaments, I said I don't want to play in a tournament, and will probably never play, especially if they have a rule for classic only. He said there needs to be an even playing field, and I said with modern you get less options of how you can control your character, so you get easier controls at the expense of customizability. If you want an even playing field should everyone have to play the same character, because every character has strengths and weaknesses, and some are more powerful than others? He did not like that... he told me I have no right to talk cause I have never played in a tournament, and that upset me greatly. So now we're both mad.
So how do I save this? What's the move here? I just want to have fun playing SF6, have a friend to play with, and not ruin my hands. Is 'classic' vs 'modern' a seism that will just make this kind of argument forever? Am I wrong, and Modern is a cheat code and I'm cheating against him when I play that way? (BTW, he had a 75% win rate against me as we played in match over match all night, so it doesn't feel like I was cheating.)
Edit: Please don't dump on my friend. If one of his points is invalid that's okay to point out, but he's not a bad person. We just have a disagreement. If he or myself is wrong, feel free to tell me why, but more importantly, I want to just have fun playing this game with him, so I need a way to solve the disagreement. Thanks :)

Hello, I'm Cheesy! Seeing as this is my first post on this subreddit, I might as well give a brief introduction of myself when it comes to my gaming background. I have been playing games for as long as I can remember, with the very first game I ever played being the original 1991 Sonic the Hedgehog. Since then, video games have become a major part of my life, giving me something to do when I'm bored or want to have a fun time with family and friends.
When it comes to my favorite types of games, I love older video games, especially from the era of early 2000s PC games.
When I think about these, my mind immediately goes to the various casual puzzle games by PopCap. There's something about the old 3D renders of these games and the simplistic, yet still well-designed UI that I really enjoy, invoking a very comfy and "home-y" feeling when I play these games.
I have played many of their games, including Plants Vs. Zombies, both Zuma titles, Insaniquarium Deluxe and more. Despite this, there are still a lot of games out there, and I'm on a mission to slowly collect and play almost every game they've put out, or at least the ones that seem most noteworthy to me, and one of these is Bejeweled 3.
One of my favorite series of PopCap's is Bejeweled, the popular match-3 game that practically defined the genre. I've played a few versions of the game here and there when they've popped up, but I've never actually gotten to experience the original full version of Bejeweled 3, what seems to be the best game in the series, at least based on the few game modes I've played in the Bejeweled Classic mobile port.
The former game actually features some more game modes and achievements not featured in the mobile version, and I would really like to be able to finally own this full version. I already enjoy the game modes and soundtrack I've gotten to play and listen to, thus far, so I'm sure that I would love being able to get the full experience on PC.
The game only costs $4.99, however, I am currently trying to limit spending to save for more practical purchases, and thus would greatly appreciate being gifted this game.
I don't believe it would be too much of an ask due to the price, but given how most PopCap games are $5 each, this purchase would still mean a lot to me.
To anyone who comes across this post, regardless of your decision to gift the game or not, thank you for your consideration and time!
Steam Profile (Name: Burning Daisies)

Does anyone use the Polyend Play with Ableton (or any other DAW) as a MIDI controller and can give me a little detail on how well it works? I'm a little confused how complex you can get with it, despite watching numerous vids/reading the manual etc.
From what I've read/watched - I'm hoping I should be able to select Play as a MIDI IN device within Ableton for a track that has an Ableton drum rack on it, then with the 4x8 keyboard grid on the right side of the Play, select the midi notes (ie drum hits) I want, per step, to sequence for the Ableton drum rack, correct? And I could say, take up 3 horizontal track lanes on the Play & view the Ableton drum sequence almost like a horizontal piano roll on it - one track lane for bass drum, one lane for snare, one for hi hats etc. I'd just have to sequence each step individually (via the key pads on the right) on the Play. This also wouldn't 'step record' live into Ableton - when ready, I'd have to record the midi notes into the DAW. This is all correct right?
I could also hypothetically set it up that one track lane on the Play would be sequencing a soft synth (say the melody) and then the lane below I could be sequencing a different soft synth within Ableton to be playing a bass sequence -- I'd just have to again, sequence each note per step on the Play.
I'm hoping to find a midi controller that helps streamline getting notes quickly into Ableton vs having to write the notes in via a mouse or step record them with a keyboard hooked into the PC (I don't like the way Ableton does its step record feature really).
From what I've gathered Deluge also offers this possibility - it looks like you can see a drum kit, lanes horizontally, in a piano roll view on it. But again I'm assuming it can't do it live within Ableton ala step record or like a Push 2. I'd have to tell Ableton to record the midi notes into its track when I'm ready. Does anyone know if in Deluge I can set individual tracks to a different soft synth - like track 1 views the melody, track 2 views the bass synth etc?
I'm basically wondering if Play can meet my needs for a midi DAW controller, or if Deluge (or even Hapax) is the way to go. Despite some of the Play's limitations, I think it looks quite fun and intuitive, and I really like the idea of some of its random algo play modes. I also like the idea that each step isnt tied down to a specific track (though I think it would be great if they added that possibility too for the best of both worlds). And from what I've seen in the next 1.4 firmware update, they're planning to add a piano roll for midi -- but I don't know if this will be for just adding chords per step, or if you can sequence numerous notes in it one by one ala a bass line.
If anyone can give me any details on them using it within their DAWs, Ableton or not, that would be great. I know some might say just get a Push. But the issue is that though it does have a nice sequencer, you can only (as far as I know) view one sequence at a time. I'd like to be able to see the drum pattern laid out horizontally almost like when you see it in the DAW/piano roll view, so you see which hits correspond with each other. Same with melody - it'd be nice to see the steps of a melody and when the bass is also corresponding to those steps. As far as I can tell you can't really view this with Push.