(This is all coming from someone who has been a furry for their entire life)
So, because of personal reasons that you’ll soon find out l, I’ve had a question that’s been killing me in the back of my head for a long ass time now. “How motivated by zoophilia are furries/how motivated by zoophilia am I?”
My ex, also being a massive furry themselves admitted to me that they looked at drawn feral/beastiality content a good amount on top of the furry/human porn they looked at. I had to end up breaking it off because personally that was too far for me, I called him disgusting, I couldn’t accept that him looking at that outright meant he found animal bodies attractive and moved on.
But then it hit me, on a few occasions in my life I’d accidentally mistaken feral art for anthro art (might sound impossible I know but it was because of the way they were angled so you weren’t really able to tell if they were or not until the next photo) and it made me realize, hey, am I really any better than him? I’ve always liked humans, but I’ve also always really been extra into them if they’ve got animal fumuzzles/tails/ears does that make me a zoophile that wants to hurt animals, why don’t I find only people attractive?
So then that naturally progressed to my next question, are most furries motivated by some form of zoophilia? Obviously I know there are differences, I am not implying all of them are the same, I know there’s a clear difference between outright finding a dog insanely attractive (they do look different from anthropomorphic animals, why else would they have human bodies.) and finding humans with animalistic traits attractive, but to me now, it all sort of seems to stem from the same place, being zoophilia, but to DRASTICALLY varying degrees and strengths. (As well as mixing with other attractions) If anything, I just kind of assume now that whether or not they want to admit it, a lot of furries do probably have low level forms of minor zoophilic attractions that go together with their primary attractions to people. (This does not exclude me lol, after a lot of deep introspection without judgement, I’ve figured that I myself could say I find animals vaguely appealing. But that is still inferior to my strong attraction to men)
that’s not to say I think that all of them even find real animals extremely attractive (though I’m sure there are some that do) nor do I even think it’s a harmful or bad thing so long as it’s not stronger than their attraction towards people and that they never act on it, which might sound crazy considering that I’m using the term zoophilia here, but what else am I supposed to call it? I am also not coming at this from a place of “ha! See, I got you, you’re all degenerate perverts!” But just a place of wanting realistic painful acceptance and understanding of myself and others amongst a community that is probably the most important thing in my life.
Whether I like it or not, furry shit has been a deep, almost spiritual id say way for me to discover myself, my strengths and weaknesses, my identity, my own sexuality, etc. I’ve looked up articles that have done studies on this for an attempt at better understanding, and the only one I could find said about 50% of furries have at least some mild/semi moderate (and in a small amount extreme) self reported sexual attraction to animals. Which kind of helped me validate my own feelings and conclusions. Either way, I’d love some open and honest communication from anyone, furry or not.
Obviously it’s hard to be entirely open about this, because I think most people just assume any amount of sexual attraction = action, and that any amount of it means that there’s secretly a huge amount of it, when for me that’s never felt like the case, I don’t feel a dying urge to be fulfilled by molesting animals that can’t consent, I just feel inexplicably consumed by guilt by the fact that I have this weird ass sexuality that’s a combination of something completely benign and healthy and also something really fucking weird! This used to be something I really liked about myself, it felt liberating and freeing and Id love for it to be that again. But now that I’m being real with myself, idk how to get rid of this shame.

Hi guys, I'm a girl and I went through a trans OCD episode 2 years ago. It lasted around 3 months and it felt like hell. Fyi the thought about me being trans came out of the blue with little prior warning and I felt someone punched me in the face. I didn't know why I was thinking all these things, they didn't make sense to me. I felt as if my brain was pushing me to be a man, even though the idea of being a man made me want to throw up. I used to spend 8-9 hours a day doing compulsions such as: doing hundreds of am I trans tests, thinking about my past if there were signs, I always checked how I felt, I checked my body, I check if the way I talk is manly or if any body moves I made were manly as well. I was going through so much anxiety to the point compulsions stopped working for me.
I got over it somehow and and I was finally myself again and I was happy. I was looking at myself in the mirror and felt euphoric.
Just so you know I am a masculine girl, even though that's not always the case. Sometimes I feel masculine and other times I feel feminine. Either way I feel like myself and there's no gender dysphoria or any thoughts of me wanting to be a man. For me, being masculine doesn't make me want to be seen or treated as a man.
So fast forward two years later, about four days ago this thing came back to haunt me. It started suddenly. Like I looked at my breasts for a moment and my brain was like: you don't want your breasts, you want to be a man. And I started panicking. Started doing compulsions again and so on. There are times where I don't feel anxiety at all, just an uncomfortable feeling and a tightness in my chest and I feel sad and frustrated. The reason as to why I may not experience so much anxiety all the time, is because before I relapsed I used to watch transgender people in the media and I didn't react and didn't feel the need to question myself because I knew who I was. Maybe it was a form of ERP.
The thing is, sometimes when I'm around other girls who are super girly, make me feel like an awkward teenage boy, because I I'm not girly enough and I feel very insecure and I hate that feeling. But now ocd tells me I'm just trans and that is a big sign. Now everything feels so real and I've lost myself. My brain tells me I'm faking being a girl and I even stopped looking at myself in the mirror because I don't know who I am anymore. I feel so lost.
I'm into men, so every time I see a handsome one my brain goes like: you want to be like him, you don't like him. The thing is I never thought of being a man, never was jealous of boys, never wished to wake up in a men's body. I have guy friends, 2 to be exact, but never felt the need to be one.
Oh and another thing, there's this Snapchat filter that makes you look like a guy if u r a girl. I tried it weeks back before the relapse and I found it so funny. And I was like: if I was guy I would look hot and laughed about it. But it was true, I looked good but that didn't make me want to be a guy. I tried that filter yesterday and I started shaking. What if it isn't just the fact that I found myself attractive and want to be like this? What if all those characteristics that I find attractive in a guy are just signs I want to be a man?
I feel so lost and disconnected from myself. I don't know, my brain tells me I'm in denial. I'm so afraid to start to recover because I may end up actually being trans. I hate it so much. I really support the lgbtqia+ community but I don't want to be trans.
I haven't been diagnosed with OCD before because there's no licensed professional where I live. I've also been through HOCD, contamination OCD, fear of being blasphemous, intrusive thoughts I want to harm myself and my family, intrusive thoughts that Im a pedophile. I always felt, since I was a kid, that something wrong was going on with my brain and I didn't know what. 2 years back when I had my first TOCD episode, was when I found out it may be OCD and I realized so much to it. But now I don't even know. Everything feels so real and my brain tells me this time is different and it's not OCD.
What do you think guys? And if it's OCD do you have any tips as to how to start recovering?
Sorry for the long post, I needed to get this thing off my chest.
P.S. sorry for any mistakes that I made. English is not my mother language.

Preface

Greetings all and good tidings. I am addressing something that has probably been addressed, rehashed, debated and possibly ignored many times over. In fact, this topic has likely been done to death on this sub. So why am I writing this post at all? Well, I hope I can address the topic in a way that does not give you indigestion, and if I do cause you gastrointestinal distress from topics on embodied minds, diachronic universalism and theories on personal identity, then I apologise in advance. There have been some relatively "newish" ideas presented in the literature about FLO and I would like to explore them and discuss what they entail. I understand that this whole topic may be irrelevant to several (many) users of this subreddit, but there are users here that this topic is quite important to, and it is them that I primarily address. All in all though, my effort here would be worthwhile if someone got something out of this.

Introduction

The Future Like Ours (FLO) argument, what is it and what does it necessitate? In its simplest form, it can be written as follows:
​

• Premise 1: It is morally wrong to deprive a being of a FLO.
• Premise 2: Killing a fetus deprives it of a FLO.
• Conclusion: Therefore, killing a fetus is morally wrong.

​
This seemingly simple argument was presented by Don Marquis in 1989. In the literature, it is widely regarded as the strongest argument against the permissibility of abortion, unless you accept some other religious doctrine. The general arguments that are provided as to the strength of Don Marquis' objection to abortion are based on the grounding that it is established on a seemingly uncontroversial view of why it is wrong to kill someone. The above argument is however deceptively simple, and I believe it is worth some time in breaking it down to establish what it means exactly.
The intention of the FLO argument is not about determining a set of conditions that may occur at some time after conception that would make abortion impermissible, but rather, that it would be impermissible in general. To describe how this argument comes about, we have to establish what it is that we mean by a future like ours. Our futures, assuming we live into the future and are able to experience, are futures of experience. In order for a fetus to have a future that is like ours, the future of the fetus must too, be one of experience. This also means that our present experience, right now, is the FLO of the fetus that was once 'us'. To achieve this end, an additional requirement is generated, the very being of the fetus must be the same being as we are now in order for the FLO of the fetus to be our current experience. A concise definition is as follows, as provided by Vogelstein:
FLO Definition: X, at time t, has a FLO if and only if (1) X exists at t, and (2) X exists for some period of time after t, during which X has valuable experiences that make X’s life after t worth living, on the whole. (Where the subject of experience is X)
There is an important distinction that needs to be made here. The future like ours argument of Don Marquis is not about the potential of the fetus to experience a future, but rather, the fetus really does experience a future. This distinction is important, as without it, the argument is open to the obvious rebuttal that a potential something is not as valuable as an actual something. The FLO argument is that the fetus is the same actual something that has future experiences as we actual somethings have future experiences right now.

The Problem of Identity

The general subject of the theory of personal identity is to describe what it is that we refer to when we say "I" and other pronouns. Generally, theories of personal identity posit that it is the thing we refer to as "I" that has experience. As by the definition of FLO above, a fetus can only have a future of experience if the thing that "I" refers to is the same as the fetus: I was once a fetus. The most widely accepted theory of personal identity; the psychological theory of personal identity, corresponds to relating "I" to the psychological connections of continuity, connectedness, similarity and other related concepts. These features correspond to particular functions of the brain. The identity objection, to put it concisely, is that for a fetus to have a FLO and adhere to the definition above, it would need to exhibit psychological traits. Since the fetus has no psychology to speak of, it does not have a FLO.
For the defender of FLO not willing to concede to this point, they are presented with a controversial choice, the rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity! This theory presents a distinction between the biological organism, and what it is that we refer to when we say "I". Under this theory, after conception, the organism existed for a certain time before "we", or "I", came into being, and so the organism before this point in time had no FLO at all. This also implies that the statement, I am my organism is not exactly correct. This point may seem like a possible point of contention by supporters of FLO, but it seems to be uncontroversial to proponents of the psychological theory of personal identity: we are minds that receive stimuli from our bodies. It's this last point that has (supposedly) provided another way out for defenders of FLO, in that they do not necessarily need to reject the psychological theory of personal identity after all, or at least, a particular form of it.

The Embodied Mind

Eric Vogelstein (2016), in his paper titled: Metaphysics and the Future-Like-Ours Argument Against Abortion provided an argument as to how FLO can still survive under Jeff McMahon's view of the embodied mind account of personal identity. The embodied mind account can arguably be traced back to Friedrich Nietzsche's classic Thus Spoke Zarathustra (one of my favourites!). Friedrich Nietzche wrote:
But greater is that in which you do not wish to believe – our body with its great intelligence; it does not say ‘I’, but does ‘I’. What the sense feels, what the spirit knows, never has its end in itself. But sense and spirit would persuade you that they are the end of all things: that is how vain they are. Instruments and toys are sense and spirit: behind them there is still the self. The self also seeks with the eyes of the senses, it also listens with the ears of the spirit. Always the self listens and seeks; it compares, overpowers, conquers, and destroys. It rules, and is also the ruler of the ‘I’. Behind your thoughts and feelings, my brother, stands a mighty ruler, an unknown sage – it is called the subconscious self; it dwells in your body, it is your body*.*
Never can I hope to achieve the level and style of writing of one such as Nietzsche! It is important to point out the very different context that surrounds Nietzsche's writings here. Nietzsche is describing the reluctance of Europeans to fully relinquish concepts of the past after the death of God! One such concept is the idea of the will, more importantly the free will endowed with inherent knowledge of morality. The free will is the end in itself with respect to the spirt of experience. Nietzsche argues to abolish this idea entirely and proclaims that the master behind "I" is our very bodies. The will is therefore no longer free, and no more endowed with knowledge of moral value than the pangs of hunger from the gut, or the... throes of passion from the groin...
In this sense, provided by Nietzsche, a description of the embodied mind account can be presented. The embodied mind is not distinct from the body but integrated within and the subject of the stimuli generated by our bodies. Our thoughts are not free but can be traced back to physiological conditions in the body. Even thoughts seemingly inspired by external stimuli are still thoughts subjugated to the master, the body! External stimulus is nothing more than the reception of outside events by our senses, and so the body is still the real author of all experience. I believe in this description, there is no point delineating the brain from the body, the brain is still your body, and your mind is integrated in your brain, that is, your body. I believe that Friedrich Nietzsche's account of an 'embodied mind' is not the same as the one argued by Jeff McMahon, as Nietzsche's take seems to be purely feed forward (and not particularly helpful to FLO), but nonetheless it still looks like "an" embodied mind account, and possibly one of, if not the earliest such account there is.
Eric Vogelstein has argued that the organism can experience by virtue of one of its parts. The brain is a part of the organism, and so the organism experiences by virtue of having a brain. Vogelstein makes use of Jeff McMahon's example of a car horn. When the horn of a car makes a noise, it does not seem controversial to say that the car made a noise. Similarly, when the brain has an experience, it should be uncontroversial to say that the organism too has an experience. Vogelstein also presents a counter to the argument that the mind itself is the subject of experience and not the brain, through the words of Eric Olson (2003):
The reason for [believing that you think but your animal or organism does not] can only be that the animal can’t think…And if that animal can’t think…then no human animal can. And if no human animal can think, no animal of any sort could….The claim, then, is that animals, including human animals, are no more intelligent or sentient than trees…This is rather hard to believe. Anyone who denies that animals can think…needs to explain why. They can’t. What stops a typical human animal from using its brain to think? Isn’t that what that organ is for?
A personal objection of mine to Olson here (this is not necessary for the argument I build later, and so I present it here) is that thinking, and experience are not the same things. We have the content of experience of thinking, and it is possible that with lesions on particular parts of our brains, our subjective experience persists but our ability to think rationally is impeded. I do not think it makes any sense to replace the word thinking with experience in the quote from Olson, as whether or not an animal or organism can experience is the very thing Olson is trying to conclude here. For example, machine learning techniques can be thought of a process of thinking, but AI has no experience to speak of, yet! Is there really any significant different in the way we think from the methods applied in machine learning? This is however a digression.
In summary here, Eric Vogelstein has presented an argument as to how an organism itself can experience. This means that the fetus, before developing the constitutive part necessary for experience (the brain) can still experience by virtue of eventually having a brain. If the organism itself can experience, and that we, or "I" are organisms, and that the fetus is the same organism, then the fetus does have a FLO - that is, if you accept all of the required premises!

Reductio ad Absurdum, a Problem for Diachronic Universalism

There is yet another issue that arises from premise one of FLO that I would like to address. Premise one states that it is immoral to deprive a being of its FLO. The reductio of premise one would be that it is immoral to deprive a sperm and an ovum of its FLO through either contraception or abstinence. Don Marquis has responded to such a criticism and has argued that contraception does not deprive a being of a FLO. Eric Vogelstein (2016) has however acknowledged that in order for this claim to succeed, yet another controversial metaphysical stance needs to be adopted - the rejection of diachronic universalism.
In Don Marquis response to the reductio critique, he outlines possible candidates for harm: (1) the sperm (and not the ovum) (2) the ovum (and not the sperm) (3) both the sperm and the ovum (4) the mereological fusion of the sperm and the ovum. Don Marquis argues that options (1) and (2) are both unlikely, as there is no reason to grant either of these candidates a privileged status as being the being with a FLO. Marquis argues that (3) is also unlikely as too many futures are lost, a problem of too many thinkers. Eric Vogelstein however dismisses this argument as both the sperm and the ovum can share the same future. The argument from Marquis that Vogelstein gives greater credit to is that the fusion of the sperm and the ovum does not preserve the existence of the things that have combined. Vogelstein acknowledges however that this argument too can be tricky on a four dimensionalist view of space and time. In such a view, it is not controversial to accept singular identities in a transitive temporal form. In the four dimensionalist view, all of the future, and all of the past exist and stretch out from our current present point in time. When tracing the organism through a four-dimensional space-time, the sperm and the ovum fuse to generate the zygote, it can be said that the sperm, or the ovum are temporal transients leading to the zygote, though it is not necessarily true that both the sperm and the ovum are temporal transients together. This is where a mereological dispute arises, and the success of the FLO argument depends on its resolution.
Diachronic universalism posits that for every set of objects that exists, there also exists an object with the members of the set as it parts. Additionally, the composition of an object comprised of members of a set can occur over time. The example that Vogelstein provides is that there is an object that is composed of both George Washington and Fenway Park, that is, an object that was George Washington and later Fenway Park. Similarly, under diachronic universalism, if there was once a sperm-ovum mereological fusion, and later, the human organism compromised of the components of the set of the sperm and the ovum; then contraception and abstinence would indeed deprive something of a FLO by premise one and would be morally wrong. If diachronic universalism is true, the defender of the FLO argument has a choice. The choice is to either accept that contraception and abstinence are as morally wrong as abortion, or accept that contraception and abstinence are not morally wrong, and so it is not immoral to deprive a fetus of its FLO. The alternative of this is to reject diachronic universalism.
The problem is that diachronic universalism has many strengths and many supporters. For example, at what point does a scattered object stop being a single object, but scattered objects? If one such component of a Macro sized object was to move by a nanometre, would it stop being an object composed of its parts? If it can move by a nanometre, why not 10 nanometres, or even a metre? There are other arguments for diachronic universalism associated with the functionality of the object for instance. The main point here is, and a point that Vogelstein acknowledges, is that success of FLO does indeed require the rejection of diachronic universalism, and this is itself a controversial stance to take. It is controversial, as for an argument to rely on an already contested premise, the argument itself is weakened.

Does the Embodied Mind Account Really Save FLO from the Identity Problem?

In 2018, Skott Brill provided, what I believe to be, a forceful rebuttal to Vogelstein's argument that the embodied mind account means defenders of FLO do not need to take the controversial stance of rejecting the psychological theory of personal identity. Skott Brill presented his arguments in a paper titled: the Identity Objection to the Future Like Ours Argument. In this paper, the embodied mind account of the psychological theory of personal identity is presented by an analogy to an orange fruit tree. The main reason for this analogy is in response to those that do make the controversial rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity in that they argue it resembles a cartesian dualism. Skott Brill demonstrates that there are dualisms, and then there are dualisms, and they can be completely uncontroversial. If we are to take a whip of a fruit tree, it slowly develops and grows branches and starts to produce fruit. The fruit may ripen, and would be juicy, sweet and orange in colour. Eventually the fruit will drop off, and what used to a whip, and now the tree will continue beyond the fruit.
In this analogy, we do not say that the tree is sweet and juicy because it produced ripened oranges. The tree grew a new entity by producing fruit, and the properties of juiciness, sweetness and orangeness are properties of the fruit and not the tree. The tree itself can exist before and after the arrival and demise of the fruit. Similarly, the human organism, as a fetus, can grow a new entity, the brain, which has distinct properties on its own like the fruit, consciousness. The organism can precede the development of consciousness, and just like the tree, in some cases, survive beyond the loss of consciousness. There is nothing particularly controversial here that necessitates an objection based on cartesian dualism.
Skott Brill continues further with a reference to the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is a mistake that we make when we infer that something has an attribute or property based on the fact that one of its parts has a particular property. The simple example that is provided is to make an inference that a car is light in weight because one of its parts is light in weight. Sometimes we are justified in this inference, where for example if one of the parts of the car is heavy, we are justified in saying the car is heavy. Skott Brill does not press this matter further, as he does not need to. A concession is made, and the embodied mind account is taken to be true so that it is assumed Vogelstein has not made a fallacy of composition.
Skott Brill points out an important point that Vogelstein has completely overlooked, that it is possible to have experiences in the way that we have experiences, and it is also possible to have experiences in a way that we do not have them. The beings that we identify as when we say "I" have experiences directly, whereas the organism has experiences derivatively. Skott Brill makes use of Jeff McMahon here to illustrate this point, which is slightly ironic in that it was McMahon's version of the embodied mind that Vogelstein has employed in his own defence of FLO:
My organism is conscious [and has experiences] only in a derivative sense, only by virtue of having a conscious [experiencing] part. Similarly, when I blow the horn of my car, the car makes a noise only in the sense that one of its parts makes a noise. There is only one noise; and there is a clear sense in which there is only one noisemaker: the horn. But we attribute the making of the noise not just to the horn but also, in a de rivative way, to the larger whole that contains it. It is clear … that the car is not some additional occult presence that mysteriously joins the horn in producing the honking noise. Nor is the organism as a whole involved in the experience of consciousness except by containing that which is conscious.
Even if the embodied mind account is taken as correct, the experience of the organism is a derivative experience and is different from the direct experience that we have. This means that the non-sentient fetus does not have a future like ours in that it experiences derivatively and not directly. There is no basis that has been established anywhere, by Marquis or by Vogelstein that the transfer of experience from direct to derivative occurs without loss, and so is a highly dubious claim to make. This is not the type of experience that Marquis is referring to in premise one of FLO. The reason it is wrong to kill us is that it deprives us of a future of experience that is an experience that we have directly. This is exactly the kind of experience that the non-sentient fetus does not have, and so the fetus does not have a future like ours at all. Under the psychological theory of personal identity, the FLO argument demonstrates that it is morally permissible to abort a fetus, as it does not have the very thing that is considered to be of value in premise one, a future like ours!

Reductio ad Absurdum Once Again! The Ovum as the Primary Candidate for Harm

I am going to explore the reductio problem of FLO a little further as I believe, even if rejecting diachronic universalism, a case can be made for the ovum as a candidate for harm, and more so, the candidate for harm. Quite recently, in 2023, Tomer Jordi Chaffer published a paper titled: Future‐like ours as a metaphysical reductio ad absurdum argument of personal identity. In this paper, it is argued that the ovum is the non-arbitrary candidate for harm for three reasons:
(1) The ovum exclusively passes down mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to offspring.
(2) The ovum can turn on paternal gene expression through histone restructuring.
(3) The ovum can undergo parthenogenesis.
If we refer back to the previous reductio section, the first two possible candidates for harm were identified as: (1) the sperm (and not the ovum) (2) the ovum (and not the sperm). Don Marquis argued that these two candidates were unlikely, as neither could be considered non-arbitrarily privileged over the other. It is this point that is contentious.
Chaffer refers to recent scientific findings from mitochondrial epigenetics corresponding to the heritable changes in gene expression of the mtDNA genome. These recent findings show increasing evidence that mitochondrial epigenetic regulators, such as mtDNA-encoded non-coded RNA (ncRNA) can translocate to the nucleus to regulate the expression of nuclear DNA (nDNA) encoded genes, which are the genes that affect identity. This mechanism can only be passed down from the mother, where sperm mitochondria are severely degraded. This establishes the ovum as having a non-arbitrary privileged position in that it has a greater role in identity formation than a sperm, corresponding to point (1) above.
There is a further point of difference between the nDNA carried by the sperm and the ovum. The nDNA carried in the head of a sperm is compacted to avoid damage as the sperm travels. In this compaction, histones are replaced with other nuclear proteins. Histones are complex proteins that regulate the gene expression and provide structural support to chromosomes. The ovum however does possess all of the necessary histones associated with gene expression and chromosome structure, but more than just this. The ovum also provides the sperm with the necessary materials, such as tripeptide antioxidant glutathione, so that the nDNA of the sperm can decondense and restructure. On this basis, epigenetically, the ovum provides the mechanisms necessary to regulate a sperms contribution to life, and so can be considered as the foundation for a new life. This corresponds to point (2) above and provides another case for the non-arbitrary privileged status of the ovum over the sperm.
A third differentiating aspect of the ovum from the sperm is that the ovum demonstrates a self-directing mechanism. The ovum has the capacity to initiate and activate embryo development without fertilization: parthenogenesis. Human parthenotes are not viable in nature, but the significance is that only the ovum can initiate this process and not the sperm, leading to yet another argument for the non-arbitrary privileged position of the ovum over the sperm, corresponding to point (3) above. If a counter to this is argued on the non-viable nature of the parthenote, that is exactly the point. The non-viable parthenote is robbed of a future by abstinence and contraception in that fertilisation did not occur before parthenogenesis was initiated.
The arguments presented above I believe provide a reasonably strong case that the ovum can be considered as a foundational structure of a new life, where a sperm merely deposits the necessary material for the foundation to become a fetus. There is a stronger line of continuity between the ovum and the zygote than there is between the zygote and the sperm. Additionally, the magnitude of the change between the ovum and the zygote is decidedly less than the magnitude of the change between the zygote and the child. I believe this is more than sufficient to argue that the ovum is a non-arbitrary candidate for harm, and possibly more than just this, the candidate for harm; the same candidate as the zygote!

Summary

I believe that the identity objection to FLO on the grounds of the psychological theory of personal identity carries significant force. Even if the embodied mind account is granted to be true, our organism, at best, can be considered to have a derivative experience only, and so the non-sentient fetus does not have a future like ours at all. On the psychological theory of personal identity, Don Marquis' argument does more to demonstrate why abortion is morally permissable rather than the reverse, because the fetus does not have the very thing which is valued, a future like ours.
The defenders of FLO are therefore faced with a controversial metaphysical stance, the rejection of the psychological theory of personal identity. Rejecting this however is not the end of the road, as yet another controversial metaphysical stance is necessary, the rejection of diachronic universalism. With the rejection of diachronic universalism, the reductio problem is still unresolved on the basis of the biology of the ovum: a strong case can be made for the ovum as a non-arbitrary candidate for harm. The defender of FLO then has yet another controversial stance to take, that it is morally impermissible to use contraceptives or abstain from sex!
Don Marquis arguments for FLO are considered to be the best secular argument as to why abortion is morally wrong, but this says nothing about the strength of the argument itself. As described above, if an argument requires two or three contested and controversial stances taken a priori, the argument itself is on more than perilous ground. If this really is the strongest case for the anti abortion argument, the anti-abortion movement itself is on extremely perilous ground! In short however, I believe FLO does achieve something quite valuable, it demonstrates that abortion is not morally wrong at all!
OK, here we are at the end... finally. That was a long post wasn't it. How is your intestinal tract by the way? Excellent! If you have made it this far, then you have my thanks, and I hope you got something out of this.
​
Thank you for your time and effort in getting through this.
​
Perse

1 owner, no reported accidents, service records go from 2017-2023. No oil change was recorded until the 50k miles mark, then oil change happens roughly every 10k mile. Every year the car was rustproof. It is a manual transmission and was assembled in Japan. Being sold by a Mazda dealership as a certified pre owned.
Please let me know if this is a good buy! And before I finish the post I do want to say thank you to all of you guys since this subreddit really helped me with my knowledge of cars!
Edit: I know it likely goes without saying but just to be 100% sure the dealer wants 10k USD.

Okay so me and Stellar came back to my loft after a month trip. And at first she was meowing to leave the room. But now she’s tearing stuff down. I don’t let her because I don’t want the cat in the kitchen because it’s unsanitary…all though it’s her favorite place to go. She resorted to ripping down the tape on my closet door to get into my closet. My cat dosent scratch or bite but she does MEOW L O U D! So it’s currently 3am and I’m trying to get this cat to just stay in my room till morning. But she’s just meowing and tearing everything down. She tried jumping onto the door knob but ended up falling off. Wen quiet for a bit and then started meowing again… Please I just want sleep! Someone help!

As the title suggests: Our group has been playing TI4 for roughly two years now. We've always had a great time and have acquired so many people that playing 6-player-games is no issue.
We don't play online, but in person.
Saturday, we're going to try PoK ...again... We've played it last year two times and although it was a nice experience overall, we didn't get hooked and went back to base game.
I am trying to figure out why we didn't like it as much basically so you can say "this is just your impression and you're objectively wrong with your assesment" since I assume that has to be a reason all of you prefer PoK over base game.
What I liked: - New Factions (Awesome!) - New Techs (Useful!) - New Objectives (Scoreable!)
What I am unsure about: - Exploration. I know, it sounds weird, but to me it felt as if the exploration adds a luck factor to the game that makes it harder to plan out your rounds in advance and thus have an overarching strategy. E.g.: If I pick trade and we're trying to become neighbours, that effort can turn out to be less useful due to what you can explore on planets before: You don't need me anymore. For me, trade is one of the greatest factors in the game, making deals with that strategy card is really awesome. Am I wrong here? Do you feel different about the necessity of trade? - Agent, Commanders, Heros. It seems as if these make the game a little "bloated". It is just so much to keep in mind at once that it seems to be really intransparent whose on their way to victory and who needs to be stopped. Is this just a problem of getting used to all the new components?
- More self-sufficient gameplay: It seems as if players are more likely to be able to score by just sitting in there slice since they can find crucial victory points due to exploration and relics.
- Titans and PDS: I already hate PDS (II) in base game. Titans make many of them. I don't like that.
I hope you can prove me wrong and I can jump onto the PoK hype train and finally understand what I've been missing. This isn't even a joke.
Maybe it's just the fact that they meet in person, but I thought that the general emphasize on intransparent plans and luck is the reason SCPT 2022 finals are that much less enjoyable to watch compared to the 2020 finals, where Matt and Hunter were able to follow the player's plans and it didn't appear that random.
Thanks in advance for reading.

So as the title says I just started playing this game and out of the 5 characters I've made they all get the quesy debuff halfway through day one and I'm usually dead by day 3 with depression quesy and overheated. I've tried changing the foods I eat to canned stuff.
Tried finding chocolate and magazines and pills to boost mood but nothing ever changes my health just keeps going down. No, I'm not bitten or injured the health screen even says everything is fine I just have constant debuffs. My last few characters have been doctor with a fast reader perk. I thought the first aid buff might help.
I really want to enjoy this game but constantly losing health with no way to change it is killing any enjoyment I have. So is it bugged? Am I doing something wrong?

My GF(22)and I(M23) have been going with each other for 4 years now. It was all love at the start, but I'm starting to feel it's wearing off. I'm not sure that I see a future with her anymore. My gut feeling is telling me. Im starting to realise that I'm not really attracted to her anymore, to be honest. I don't want to sound terrible but she has let herself go a bit. I don't think we have much in common, and her family is a bit mad too. She is a lovely girl, tho and I know she loves me big time, but I'm thinking about cutting it off. What do you guys think I should do?

Off Payroll Working (Anti-Avoidance) Bill

An Act to make provision for further anti-avoidance measures in relation to Off Payroll Working and the establishment of employee rights where income is deemed employment income.
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
Section 1: Definitions
(1) “Off Payroll Working legislation” refers to successive previous laws and regulations related to the determination on whether a worker should be treated as an employee or self-employed for tax purposes when paid through an intermediary.
(2) “IR35 legislation” refers to the successive previous laws and regulations on off payroll working above, directed at small privately owned businesses.
(3) “Client” refers to any corporate entity which pays for services provided by an intermediary.
(4) “Intermediary” refers to any corporate entity established to provide the services of individuals to a client.
(5) “Individual” refers to the person providing services to a client while remunerated through an intermediary
(6) “Deemed employment income” is any income liable for income tax and national insurance under the terms set out in Section 5.
Section 2: Combination of Off Payroll Working and IR35 rules
(1) From the enactment of this Bill, interpretation of all IR35 legislation will be considered the same as Off Payroll Working legislation, and the treatment between small private businesses and other businesses will be the same.
(2) In all cases, the client will now be responsible for determining the employment status of the worker.
Section 3: Application of Off Payroll Working Rules
(1) Off Payroll Working Rules will be considered when:

a. An individual has more than 5% ownership of an intermediary entity, and/or;
b. Services given to a client by an intermediary equate to more than 5% of the individual’s total taxable earnings.

Section 4: Assessment of Employee or Self-employed for tax purposes
(1) In each financial year, the client must make an assessment on whether an individual should be taxed as an employee or self-employed.
(2) If at least 5 of the following conditions apply, the individual shall be classified as an employee for tax purposes and “deemed employment income” should be calculated and taxed for Income Tax and National Insurance by both the client (in the first instance) and by the individual (true up/down in their annual self assessment):

a. Degree of control - in the course of the services, is the client mostly responsible for establishing the hours of the service or the time of day or date that the work should be delivered?
b. Mutuality of obligations - is the client obliged under the terms of the contract to give regular work and pay for it, and is the individual responsible for delivering that work?
c. Correction of work - is the client responsible, ahead of the intermediary or individual, either contractually or implicitly, for the quality of the services delivered by the individual?
d. Financial risk - are the financial risks related to the contract primarily with the client instead of the intermediary/individual?
e. Provision of own equipment - is the majority of the equipment used (buildings, plant and machinery, technology, sundries etc.) in the service provided by the client?
f. Disciplinary - is the individual contractually obliged to the same or greater behaviour and disciplinary terms as an employee of the client, or where not applicable, an employee of an equivalent business?
g. Exclusivity - does the contract result in substantial terms of exclusivity for a period greater than 3 months?
h. Inclusion in business - is the individual practically included in the client business in the context of internal meetings and communications?
i. Alternative worker - can an alternative individual replace the individual without substantial disruption or public statement?
j. Public opinion test - would a reasonable member of the public expect that the individual is an employee of the client?

(3) HMRC will challenge the judgements made for each consideration above if they appear to be unreasonable in a tax tribunal.
Section 5: Provision of employment benefits for deemed employment income earners
(1) Where an assessment is made that an individuals’ earnings are deemed employment income, the individual retains the right to statutory employment benefits and statutory pension terms as other employees.
Section 6: Repeals
(1) The Off Payroll Working (IR35 clarification) Act 2018 is hereby repealed.
Section 7: Commencement, Short Title and Extent
(1) This Act will come into force on the 6 April 2024
(2) This Act will extend to the entirety of the United Kingdom.
(3) This Act shall be cited as the Off Payroll Working (Anti-avoidance) Act 2023
This Bill was submitted by His Grace Sir Rea-wakey KCT KT KD KCMG KBE MVO FRS, Duke of Dorset, Secretary of State for the Home Department, on behalf of His Majesty’s 33rd Government.
Opening Speech:
Deputy Speaker,
I now present the final piece of anti-avoidance legislation to the House. Many years ago, alongside my good friend bnzss, I co-wrote a piece of legislation designed to tackle the known tax avoidance loophole through off-payroll working. While the legislation has been somewhat useful at tackling the loophole, recent cases such as those of Gary Lineker and Lorraine Kelly have proven that the legislation simply does not go far enough. Therefore I decided to rip it up and start again.
This legislation goes much further than the previous Bill - firstly combining both the IR35 rules for small businesses and the off-payroll working rules that currently apply to larger businesses, ensuring consistency between both sets of rules. Secondly, the Bill establishes a clearer set of criteria and a passable threshold in which earnings made through a company registered under the Companies Act 2006 or it’s predecessor or successor acts or a limited partnership should be recognised as employment income, thereby incurring income tax and National Insurance. Finally, this Bill provides further clarity as to the status of an individual when their income is deemed to be employment income, and extends the rights of employees to these workers including but not limited to the provision of statutory employment benefits and rights under the Employment Rights Act 1996 and statutory pension regulations.
The Government will relentlessly pursue those who wish to use technicalities in our regulations to avoid paying higher rates of tax and companies that wish to avoid conferring statutory benefits to those who are, for all intents and purposes, employees.
In combination with the other two pieces of anti-avoidance legislation I will be/have submitted to the House, these measures are collectively expected to raise £3.4 billion. This proposed revenue generation and these Bills were raised at Her Majesty’s Budget Committee and unopposed. My thanks go to my friend the Right Honourable Phonexia2 for their assistance in costing.
I urge the House to rally behind this Bill.
(M: These costings are calculated as 40% of the tax gap
for “Evasion” and “Non-payment”, given the difficulty of calculating the actual revenue generated from these measures).
This division will end at 10pm on Wednesday 7th June 2023.

Title.
I am looking for languages to learn just for the dopamine sake of it (yes I have no hobbies and yes I have to go touch grass), and my god.

• Tried Java Spring. Tried to test my simplest application, and I run into error: https://i.imgur.com/CWlbTVZ.png It is, three minutes in, and I ran into dependency error. Bravo.
• Tried NodeJS. Good luck if you update anything.
• Tried Rust. Crate is nice overall, but you have to reinvent so many wheels to make it subpar with a framework or GoLang. From a copy paste, you need to reinvent these for a login backend:
  • figure out your own sessions (keeping in mind all those vulnerabilities) figure out your own password hashing (don't forget about proper KDFs, parameter upgrades over the years, etc) figure out logging. It's much harder than it seems, for example there is no foot gun-free way to get request IDs in your logs with tracing. Even basics like "how do I make sure that all 500s in my views are logged" aren't covered yet, you have to write your own glue for that. figure out database (there are sqlx and diesel, but they both have their problems and won't hold your hand) choose your templating engine figure out your approach to forms finally write your own view for logins, being mindful of timing attacks oh and don't forget about CSRFs in your forms also don't forget to reset the session after login
• Tried Python. Something feels... wrong. I am working with FastAPI as a part of my job, but something feels wrong with it. I dont feel like actually coding. I dont know why. And, Django is just a config simulator.
• Tried Kotlin. Same issues as spring.

help :( please help me to find a language that's dependency managament is not total aids, and I dont have to reinvent things. I dont care if it is fun or not, I just need distraction. <3

I was just thinking about which sb ending is canon when I noticed something. We all know Scott isn't one to accidentally filter something in via colors and lore etc. and I noticed something weird. When anyone in the franchise is seen as "free", they always have some indicator of purple. You see if you look at the only 3-star ending of SB. It shows glam rock Freddy, Gregory, and presumably Vanessa. All of them are purple. Gregory and Vanessa are wearing purple shirts and, if micheal=glam Freddy is true, that means he inside is "purple".Now, we know in this ending Vanessa is free from Glitchtrap and that means she is wearing the purple as a little note of how she is free. We know Michael is free because he is no longer constricted to the pizzaplex, he may rest his soul. This means that Gregory must also be free. I am considering that the princess quest can free both of them, as it frees the vengeful spirit which I guess "attacks?" the glitch trap virus. Now, the only way that this can be true is if, in fact, the burn trap ending is canon. This means none of the three are free, meaning that Gregory could be lured or trapped using the glitch trap virus and then told to make a message to Cassey, therefore making a trap. To follow on with the theory of color, we see that at every point where William is free, he is purple. The time before his son dies he is free. When he is willfully committing the missing children's incident he is free, it is him inflicting these wounds, not his drunkenness. This leads me to the times he isn't free. He isn't free after the night of Charlie's death. He is bound by drunkenness and anger. That is why he is yellow. That isn't him free. As a further fact, when he is spring locked he is forever not free, hence why he is stuck in something the opposite color of freedom in this universe-yellow.The lists of parallels go on in this color theory! Circus baby's eyes used to be blue. Then along came Elizabeth. Elizabeth became trapped and died in circus baby, adding the yellow of no freedom. And, if anyone is a theorist they should know logically what yellow+blue is. Hence why baby has green eyes. Now you may think this is just a theory that is valid, yes (or no-depending on whether unlike me you still have your sanity in one place) but extremely unimportant. Well, that brings me to the second part of the theory. I think that all the other endings are there to show what happens regardless of which ending is canon. They all show factual things that happen. Just like FNAF 3. The good ending is canon-yes. But the bad ending is there to show what happens regardless. William is still spring locked and the bad ending shows this, regardless of it not being the canon of the two endings. Now let's look at the other endings and their significance. The bad ending shows that more murders will happen. The next ending shows that as long as Freddy is in the pizzaplex, Vanny will be out to get him into ruin. It shows what will happen to Freddy so that in ruin he is not his former self. The next ending is confusing, and all I can say is that it may possibly strengthen the theory from a LOOOOONGGGGG time ago, the cult of Glitchtrap, the theory suggesting that Vanessa isn't the only follower of Glitchtrap. This may mean that even though the name Vanny is contributed to Vanessa, it may just be a title for anyone who puts on the mask and complies with Glitchtrap, which would explain why Vanessa is still alive after definitely being dead. The good ending is just there to be there at least in my understanding. That leaves us with the two main endings. The burn trap ending shows us something significant. Gregory isn't wearing purple! This means that he could still be under glitchtrap's control, and therefore ruin can take place, whereas the 3-star ending is just a show that purple is a show of freedom in this world. And that is why I call this, long, painful and half-baked theory:
​
FNAF- A Theory Of Color
​
Honestly, I want to see what everyone thinks because this was just something that popped up in my head.

Hey y’all, I currently have a ticket for Brysons show in Sacramento, but I’m looking to sell because I need money to buy Joji tickets instead 😭 so if you’re looking to go to his sac show I have one ticket just hmu!!

Yahoooo! Welcome to the Daily Discussion Thread! Have a very cool day! Luigi numbah one!
Welcome to the Daily Discussion Thread. This is the place for asking noob questions, venting about netplay falcos, shitposting, self-promotion, and everything else that doesn't belong on the front page.

New Players:

If you're completely new to Melee and just looking to get started, welcome! We recommend you go to https://blippi.gg/ and follow the links there based on what you're trying to set up. Additionally, here are a few answers to common questions:
Can I play Melee online?
Yes! Slippi is a branch of the Dolphin emulator that will allow you to play online, either with your friends or with matchmaking. Go to https://slippi.gg to get it.
Netplay is hard! Is there a place for me to find new players?
Yes. Melee Newbie Netplay is a discord server specifically for new players. It also has tournaments based on how long you've been playing, free coaching, and other stuff. If you're a bit more experienced but still want a discord server for players around your level, we recommend the Melee Online discord.
How can I set up Unclepunch's Training Mode?
First download it here. Then extract everything in the folder and follow the instructions in the README file. You'll need to bring a valid Melee ISO (NTSC 1.02)
I'm having issues with Slippi!
Go to the The Slippi Discord to get help troubleshooting.
How does one learn Melee?
There are tons of resources out there, so it can be overwhelming to start. First check out the SSBM Tutorials youtube channel. Then go to the Melee Library and search for whatever you're interested in.
But how do I get GOOD at Melee?
Check out Llod's Guide to Improvement
Where can I get a nice custom controller?
https://customg.cc/vendors
I have another question that's not answered here...
Check out our FAQs or post below and find help that way.

Upcoming Tournament Schedule:

Upcoming Melee Majors

Melee Online Event Calendar

Make a submission to the tournament calendar here. You can also get notified of new online tournaments on the Melee Online Discord.
​

• Current DDT Dynamic Link — Previous DDTs

​
https://preview.redd.it/xbbmvwk05y2b1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=116c1a4c80219604524cc4a321c8086cdb93a5a7
if ANYONE is interested send me a message on Fiverr
==> https://bazarcom.org/Biahezacourse
NEW COURSES (Included when buying my whole collection!):
· ⭐Iman Gadzhi – Agency Navigator 2023
· ⭐Sam Ovens - Consulting Accelerator 2023
· ⭐Cole Gordon – 30 Day Closer
· ⭐Montell Gordon - Agency Transmulation
· ⭐Charlie Morgan - Easygrow Course
· ⭐Sebastian Esqueda - Ecom Revolution
· ⭐Biaheza Droppshiping Course 2023
· Andrew Tate – Courses Bundle
· Charlie Morgan - Imperium Agency
· Charlie Morgan - Gym Growth Accelerator
· Biaheza - Full Dropshipping Course 2023
· Jordan Welch - The Reveal 2023
· Savannah Sanchez - TikTok Ads Course 2023
· Iman Gadzhi - Copy Paste Agency
· Sam Ovens - UpLevel Consulting
· Miles – The FBA Roadmap + The Profit Vault
· Andrew Giorgi – Amazon Dropshipping Course
· Sebastian Esqueda – Ecom Revolution Training Program
· Luca Netz – Advanced Dropshipping 2023
· Kevin King – Freedom Ticket 3.0
· Jordan Platten – LearnAds – Facebook Ads Pro 2023
· Miles – The FBA Roadmap + The Profit Vault
· Dan Vas – Ecom Freedom Shopify Blueprint 2023
· Alexander J.A Cortes - WiFi Money Machine
· Kody Knows - Native Mastery
· Bastiaan Slot - Six Figure Consulting
· Kaibax - Centurion agency
· Joe Robert - Print On Demand Accelerator
· Ryan Hogue - Ryan's Method Dropshipped POD
· Kevin Zhang - Ecommerce Millionaire Mastery
· Ryan Lee – 48 Hour Continuity
· [METHOD] ⚡️TikTok Algorithm Domination Skyrocket your engagement TODAY Updated 2023✨
· Troy Ericson – Email List Management Certification
· Larry Goins – Filthy Riches Home Study Course
· Ry Schwartz – Automated Intimacy
· Patrick Bet-David – All Access Bundle
· Andrea Unger – Master the Code & Go LIVE
· Jon Benson – 10 Minute Sales Letter
· Alen Sultanic – Automatic Clients & Bonuses
· Taylor Welch – Cashflow for Consultants
· Akeem Reed – Slingshot Rental Blueprint
· The Futur Greg Gunn – Illustration for Designers
· Trading180 – Supply And Demand Zone Trading Course
· Jim McKelvey (Foundr) – How To Build An Unbeatable Business
· Master of AI Copy – Copy School by Copyhackers
· Copyhackers – Copy School 2023
· Matei – Gann Master Forex Course
· YOYAO Hsueh – Topical Maps Unlocked
· Tyler McMurray – Facts Verse Youtube Automation Course
· Ashton Shanks – 7 Day Copywriting Challenge Featuring ChatGPT
· Rene Lacad – Rockstar Marketing Blueprint
· Top Trade Tools – Hedge Fund Trender
· Brandi Mowles – Conversion For Clients
· Glen Allsopp – SEO Blueprint 2 (DETAILED)
· Trading Busters – Prop Trading Formula Course
· Sam Woods – The AI Copywriting Workshop (Complete Edition)
· Brian Anderson – Recovery Profit System
· LOW COMPETITION KEYWORDS IN MINUTES ⚡ 70+ REVIEWS ✅ BONUS PDF WORTH $200+
· Devon Brown – Easiest System Ever
· Duston McGroarty – St. Patrick’s Day 2023 Live Event
· Dan Wardrope – Click & Deploy Sales Android
· Lost Boys Academy – How To Make Life Changing Money With OnlyFans!
· WealthFRX Trading Mastery Course 2.0
· TOM & HARRY – Digital Culture Academy
· 100+ Cold Email Templates
· [METHOD] ✅ Make Real Cash with Auto Blogging ⛔Get $1199 Worth of Resources ❌ CUSTOMIZED SECRET PROCESS⚡DONE FOR YOU SITE ⭐ Unlimited Niche Opportunity & So on
· Tobias Dahlberg – Brand Mastery
· Raul Gonzalez – Day Trading Institution 2.0
· Rasmus & Christian Mikkelsen –Impact Academy 2023
· [METHOD] ☢️ The Quick eBay Money Loophole Guide ☢️
· Apteros Trading – March 2023 Intensive
· Rob Lennon – Zero to 10k Twitter Accelerator
· Rob Lennon – Next-Level Prompt Engineering with AI
· Rasmus & Christian Mikkelsen – NEW Audiobook Income Academy Download
· Grow and Convert – Customers From Content
· Charles Miller – The Writersonal Branding Playbook
· Kaye Putnam – Convert with a Quiz
· Forex Mentor – London Close Trade 2.0
· Chase Reiner – Fortune Bots Update 1
· Andrew Ethan Zeng – Social Marketing Mastery
· [Method] Upload FULL, 100% Unedited Copyrighted Videos on Youtube! Content ID DESTROYER!
· Digital Daily – Top 150 ChatGPT Prompts to Make your Life Easy
· Patek Fynnip – Psychology Course
· Thomas Frank – Creator’s Companion (Ultimate Brain Edition)
· [METHOD] ⚡ See the MAGIC of Bulk Posting ✨ Untapped Method ✅ [ BONUS ChatGpt and Affiliate list Pdf]✅
· ⭕️ YouTube Content Machine – Unlimited FREE traffic for CPA – Fully Automated Method ⭕️
· Jakob Greenfeld – Scraping The Web For Fun and Profit
· Adrian Twarog – OpenAI Template Starter Kit for ChatGPT / GPT3
· The Secret Merchants List of Over 2000+ Dropshippers and Amazon FBA Suppliers Based in The US
· Top Trade Tools – Top Swing Trader Pro
· Charlie Houpert – Charisma University 2023
· ▶️ [METHOD + GUIDE] ✅ Make Money ✅ with Kindle Books ⚠️ Even if You Can’t Write ⚠️ [STEP-BY-STEP] ⚡ NO INVESTMENT REQUIRED! ⚡
· Charlie Morgan – Easy Grow
· Nina Clapperton – Jasper AI Course for Bloggers
· Travis Stephenson – Simple Profit System
· Manny Khoshbin – Real Estate Starter Program
· Tanner Henkel & Jerrod Harlan – 7-Figure Email Machine
· [METHOD] Stop Wasting Money on AI Writers Train And Fine-Tune Your Own AI For Free With No Code ⚡⚡⚡Real Method & Practice Examples ⚡⚡
· Creator Hooks – YouTube Title Mastery
· Thomas Frank – Creator’s Companion (Ultimate Brain Edition)
· Sean Dollwet – Royalty Hero
· Jason Bell – Birthday Marketing Formula
· NXT Level FX – Investors Domain
· [METHOD] ⏩ My ETSY $40K~ Passive Income 2023 + HOT Products (Earning Proof) ⏪ Make Money No Marketing Easy $40K~ Guide FOR NOOBS ✅
· Rob Jones & Gerry Cramer – Profit Singularity Ultra Edition 2022 (AI & ChatGPT)
· Cody Wittick & Taylor Lagace – The Influencer Marketing Blueprint
· ⚡️➡️$390/Week BLUEPRINT+PROOF✅Scalable Method❤️Amazon to eBay Dropship✅
· Kody Ashmore – Simpler Trading – Drama Free Day Trades ELITE
· Youri van Hofwegen – YouTube Search Automation
· Montell Gordon – Agency Transmutation
· Csaba Borzasi – Breakthrough Conversions Academy
· Tim Denning – Twitter Badassery
· Geoff Cudd – AI Writing Course for Bloggers & Digital Marketers
· RED CPA FORMULA – UNTAPPED UNDERGROUND CPA SYSTEM
· BowtiedCocoon – Zero to $100k: Landing Any Tech Sales Role
· Holly Starks – Make LINK BUILDING Great Again!
· Mike Warren – Deeds4Cash
· BITCOIN BRITS – The Crypto Course
· Max Gilles – ⚡️☄️ UHQ Leak ❤️CPA JACKER – Epic CPA Blueprint✅⚡️
· Aidan Booth & Steve Clayton – 123 Profit Update 9
· Christina Galbato – The Influencer Bootcamp
· John Thornhill – Ambassador Program
· [Sales] 999+ Ultimate ChatGPT Prompts To Copy & Paste (250+ tasks)
· Pollinate Trading – Curvy Trading System
· Content Mavericks – The Greatest Hits Content System
· Andriy Boychuk – Flowium – Klaviyo Mastery 2.0
· Dagobert Renouf – How To Dominate Twitter (Advanced Growth Bundle)
· Darius Lukas – ⭐ The Marketer’s Bible to ChatGPT ✅ 1000+ ChatGPT Prompts to Copy, Paste & Scale
· Billy Gene – 5 Day A.I. Crash Course for Marketers
· Alex Cattoni – Posse Eye Brand Voice Challenge Program
· Casey Zander – YouTube Fame Game Blueprint
· Harlan Kilstein – Midjourney Mastery
· Shawna Newman – YouTube for Niche Sites
· [Marketing] 1099+ Ultimate ChatGPT Marketing Prompts To Copy & Paste (200+ tasks)
· Karen Foo – Star Traders Forex Intermediate Course
· TheMacLyf – Hive Mind & Masterclass (Onlyfans Course)
· Brittany Lewis – Top Seller Secret
· Dan Henry – Facebook Ads for Entrepreneur
· Russ Horn – Ultra Blue Forex
· Scott Phillips – Crypto Salary System
· Roland Frasier – AI Powered Expert Apprentice + Update 1
· Roger & Barry – Give Academy 1k/Day Platinum Mastermind [COMPLETE with LATEST UPDATE]
· Bretty Curry (Smart Marketer) – Smart Amazon Ecommerce
· Steven Dux – Traders Edge 2023
· Aidan Booth & Steve Clayton – 123 Profit
· Allie Bjerk – Tiny Offer Lab
· Dicke Bush – Generate 10x More Content Using AI
· Mateusz Rutkowski – New Money Blueprint
· Smart Raja Concepts (SRC) – Forex 101
· Chase Reiner – Short Form Riches Bootcamp 2023 – AI ChatGPT Bot Update 3
· Chase Reiner – AI Profits
· Travis Sago – Cold Outreach & Prospecting AMA Offer (Best Value with All Bonuses)
· Live Traders – Professional Trading Strategies
· Allan Dib – The 1-Page Marketing Plan Course
· Dan Koe – Digital Economics Masters Degree
· The Trading Guide – The Gold Box Strategy
· The Complete XAUUSD GOLD Forex Scalping System On Real Trading Account
if ANYONE is interested send me a message on Fiverr
==> https://bazarcom.org/Biahezacourse

Hey there! I am a 22 year old guy, and im looking for my special someone.
I am 190cm(6'3) tall, I have short black hair, hazel eyes. In my freetime, I go to the gym, I enjoy playing video games such as league of legends, csgo, r6 siege, tf2, minecraft, and etc.) Also, I love working on my cars, going on a long car rides while listening to music. I also have 2 dogs who I enjoy petting and playing with. I go to university to be an IT Engineer 3 days a week, and to work 2 days a week.
I am a very cuddly person, very loyal, honest, and I like giving all of my attention to the person who's important for me. If we'd get closer, I'd love to spend all my freetime with you and chat/voice call a lot, listen to music together, watch videos and movies together, and hopefully develop a long lasting relationship.
Im naturally a dominant person, but we can talk about this in private.
If you'd be interested in chatting and getting to know each other, send me a message here or on discord! :) My discord is Armzii#3764

Hey there! I am a 22 year old guy, and im looking for my special someone.
I am 190cm(6'3) tall, I have short black hair, hazel eyes. In my freetime, I go to the gym, I enjoy playing video games such as league of legends, csgo, r6 siege, tf2, minecraft, and etc.) Also, I love working on my cars, going on a long car rides while listening to music. I also have 2 dogs who I enjoy petting and playing with. I go to university to be an IT Engineer 3 days a week, and to work 2 days a week.
I am a very cuddly person, very loyal, honest, and I like giving all of my attention to the person who's important for me. If we'd get closer, I'd love to spend all my freetime with you and chat/voice call a lot, listen to music together, watch videos and movies together, and hopefully develop a long lasting relationship.
Im naturally a dominant person, but we can talk about this in private.
If you'd be interested in chatting and getting to know each other, send me a message here or on discord! :)

The Airbus A300 is a wide-body airliner developed and manufactured by Airbus. In September 1967, aircraft manufacturers in the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a large airliner. West Germany and France reached an agreement on 29 May 1969 after the British withdrew from the project on 10 April 1969. European collaborative aerospace manufacturer Airbus Industrie was formally created on 18 December 1970 to develop and produce it. The prototype first flew on 28 October 1972.
The first twin-engine widebody airliner, the A300 typically seats 247 passengers in two classes over a range of 5,375 to 7,500 km (2,900 to 4,050 nmi). Initial variants are powered by General Electric CF6-50 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D turbofans and have a three-crew flight deck. The improved A300-600 has a two-crew cockpit and updated CF6-80C2 or PW4000 engines; it made its first flight on 8 July 1983 and entered service later that year. The A300 is the basis of the smaller A310 (first flown in 1982) and was adapted in a freighter version. Its cross section was retained for the larger four-engined A340 (1991) and the larger twin-engined A330 (1992). It is also the basis for the oversize Beluga transport (1994).
Launch customer Air France introduced the type on 23 May 1974. After limited demand initially, sales took off as the type was proven in early service, beginning three decades of steady orders. It has a similar capacity to the Boeing 767-300, introduced in 1986, but lacked the 767-300ER range. During the 1990s, the A300 became popular with cargo aircraft operators, as both passenger airliner conversions and as original builds. Production ceased in July 2007 after 561 deliveries. As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service.
Origins:
During the 1960s, European aircraft manufacturers such as Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation, based in the UK, and Sud Aviation of France, had ambitions to build a new 200-seat airliner for the growing civil aviation market. While studies were performed and considered, such as a stretched twin-engine variant of the Hawker Siddeley Trident and an expanded development of the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) One-Eleven, designated the BAC Two-Eleven, it was recognized that if each of the European manufacturers were to launch similar aircraft into the market at the same time, neither would achieve sales volume needed to make them viable.[2] In 1965, a British government study, known as the Plowden Report, had found British aircraft production costs to be between 10% and 20% higher than American counterparts due to shorter production runs, which was in part due to the fractured European market. To overcome this factor, the report recommended the pursuit of multinational collaborative projects between the region's leading aircraft manufacturers.[3]: 49 [4][5]: 2–13
European manufacturers were keen to explore prospective programs; the proposed 260-seat wide-body HBN 100 between Hawker Siddeley, Nord Aviation, and Breguet Aviation being one such example.[2][6]: 37–38 National governments were also keen to support such efforts amid a belief that American manufacturers could dominate the European Economic Community;[7] in particular, Germany had ambitions for a multinational airliner project to invigorate its aircraft industry, which had declined considerably following the Second World War.[3]: 49–50 During the mid-1960s, both Air France and American Airlines had expressed interest in a short-haul twin-engine wide-body aircraft, indicating a market demand for such an aircraft to be produced.[3][8] In July 1967, during a high-profile meeting between French, German, and British ministers, an agreement was made for greater cooperation between European nations in the field of aviation technology, and "for the joint development and production of an airbus".[2][9]: 34 The word airbus at this point was a generic aviation term for a larger commercial aircraft, and was considered acceptable in multiple languages, including French.[9]: 34
Shortly after the July 1967 meeting, French engineer Roger Béteille was appointed as the technical director of what would become the A300 program, while Henri Ziegler, chief operating office of Sud Aviation, was appointed as the general manager of the organization and German politician Franz Josef Strauss became the chairman of the supervisory board.[2] Béteille drew up an initial work share plan for the project, under which French firms would produce the aircraft's cockpit, the control systems, and lower-center portion of the fuselage, Hawker Siddeley would manufacture the wings, while German companies would produce the forward, rear and upper part of the center fuselage sections. Addition work included moving elements of the wings being produced in the Netherlands, and Spain producing the horizontal tail plane.[2][6]: 38
An early design goal for the A300 that Béteille had stressed the importance of was the incorporation of a high level of technology, which would serve as a decisive advantage over prospective competitors. As such, the A300 would feature the first use of composite materials of any passenger aircraft, the leading and trailing edges of the tail fin being composed of glass fibre reinforced plastic.[5]: 2–16 [10] Béteille opted for English as the working language for the developing aircraft, as well against using Metric instrumentation and measurements, as most airlines already had US-built aircraft.[10] These decisions were partially influenced by feedback from various airlines, such as Air France and Lufthansa, as an emphasis had been placed on determining the specifics of what kind of aircraft that potential operators were seeking. According to Airbus, this cultural approach to market research had been crucial to the company's long-term success.[10]
Workshare and redefinition:
On 26 September 1967, the British, French, and West German governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding to start development of the 300-seat Airbus A300.[6]: 38 [11]: 43 [12]: 57 At this point, the A300 was only the second major joint aircraft programme in Europe, the first being the Anglo-French Concorde.[9] Under the terms of the memorandum, Britain and France were each to receive a 37.5 per cent work share on the project, while Germany received a 25 per cent share. Sud Aviation was recognized as the lead company for A300, with Hawker Siddeley being selected as the British partner company.[2] At the time, the news of the announcement had been clouded by the British Government's support for the Airbus, which coincided with its refusal to back BAC's proposed competitor, the BAC 2–11, despite a preference for the latter expressed by British European Airways (BEA).[9]: 34 Another parameter was the requirement for a new engine to be developed by Rolls-Royce to power the proposed airliner; a derivative of the in-development Rolls-Royce RB211, the triple-spool RB207, capable of producing of 47,500 lbf (211 kN).[13] The program cost was US$4.6 billion (in 1993 Dollars).[14]
​
In December 1968, the French and British partner companies (Sud Aviation and Hawker Siddeley) proposed a revised configuration, the 250-seat Airbus A250. It had been feared that the original 300-seat proposal was too large for the market, thus it had been scaled down to produce the A250.[5]: 2–14 [8][15] The dimensional changes involved in the shrink reduced the length of the fuselage by 5.62 metres (18.4 ft) and the diameter by 0.8 metres (31 in), reducing the overall weight by 25 tonnes (55,000 lb).[10][16]: 16 For increased flexibility, the cabin floor was raised so that standard LD3 freight containers could be accommodated side-by-side, allowing more cargo to be carried. Refinements made by Hawker Siddeley to the wing's design provided for greater lift and overall performance; this gave the aircraft the ability to climb faster and attain a level cruising altitude sooner than any other passenger aircraft.[10] It was later renamed the A300B.[9]: 34 [15]
Perhaps the most significant change of the A300B was that it would not require new engines to be developed, being of a suitable size to be powered by Rolls-Royce's RB211, or alternatively the American Pratt & Whitney JT9D and General Electric CF6 powerplants; this switch was recognized as considerably reducing the project's development costs.[11]: 45 [15][16]: 16–17 To attract potential customers in the US market, it was decided that General Electric CF6-50 engines would power the A300 in place of the British RB207; these engines would be produced in co-operation with French firm Snecma.[8][10] By this time, Rolls-Royce had been concentrating their efforts upon developing their RB211 turbofan engine instead and progress on the RB207's development had been slow for some time, the firm having suffered due to funding limitations, both of which had been factors in the engine switch decision.[5]: 2–13 [15][16]: 17–18
On 10 April 1969, a few months after the decision to drop the RB207 had been announced, the British government announced that they would withdraw from the Airbus venture.[6]: 38–39 [15] In response, West Germany proposed to France that they would be willing to contribute up to 50% of the project's costs if France was prepared to do the same.[15] Additionally, the managing director of Hawker Siddeley, Sir Arnold Alexander Hall, decided that his company would remain in the project as a favoured sub-contractor, developing and manufacturing the wings for the A300, which would later become pivotal in later versions' impressive performance from short domestic to long intercontinental flights.[5]: 2–13 [9]: 34 [16]: 18 Hawker Siddeley spent £35 million of its own funds, along with a further £35 million loan from the West German government, on the machine tooling to design and produce the wings.[6]: 39 [15]
Programme launch:
On 29 May 1969, during the Paris Air Show, French transport minister Jean Chamant and German economics minister Karl Schiller signed an agreement officially launching the Airbus A300, the world's first twin-engine widebody airliner.[2] The intention of the project was to produce an aircraft that was smaller, lighter, and more economical than its three-engine American rivals, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.[10] In order to meet Air France's demands for an aircraft larger than 250-seat A300B, it was decided to stretch the fuselage to create a new variant, designated as the A300B2, which would be offered alongside the original 250-seat A300B, henceforth referred to as the A300B1. On 3 September 1970, Air France signed a letter of intent for six A300s, marking the first order to be won for the new airliner.[6]: 39 [10][16]: 21
In the aftermath of the Paris Air Show agreement, it was decided that, in order to provide effective management of responsibilities, a Groupement d'intérêt économique would be established, allowing the various partners to work together on the project while remaining separate business entities.[2] On 18 December 1970, Airbus Industrie was formally established following an agreement between Aérospatiale (the newly merged Sud Aviation and Nord Aviation) of France and the antecedents to Deutsche Aerospace of Germany, each receiving a 50 per cent stake in the newly formed company.[3]: 50 [6]: 39 [10] In 1971, the consortium was joined by a third full partner, the Spanish firm CASA, who received a 4.2 per cent stake, the other two members reducing their stakes to 47.9 per cent each.[10][16]: 20 In 1979, Britain joined the Airbus consortium via British Aerospace, which Hawker Siddeley had merged into, which acquired a 20 per cent stake in Airbus Industrie with France and Germany each reducing their stakes to 37.9 per cent.[3]: 53 [5]: 2–14 [6]: 39
Prototype and flight testing:
Airbus Industrie was initially headquartered in Paris, which is where design, development, flight testing, sales, marketing, and customer support activities were centered; the headquarters was relocated to Toulouse in January 1974.[8][10] The final assembly line for the A300 was located adjacent to Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. The manufacturing process necessitated transporting each aircraft section being produced by the partner companies scattered across Europe to this one location. The combined use of ferries and roads were used for the assembly of the first A300, however this was time-consuming and not viewed as ideal by Felix Kracht, Airbus Industrie's production director.[10] Kracht's solution was to have the various A300 sections brought to Toulouse by a fleet of Boeing 377-derived Aero Spacelines Super Guppy aircraft, by which means none of the manufacturing sites were more than two hours away. Having the sections airlifted in this manner made the A300 the first airliner to use just-in-time manufacturing techniques, and allowed each company to manufacture its sections as fully equipped, ready-to-fly assemblies.[3]: 53 [10]
In September 1969, construction of the first prototype A300 began.[16]: 20 On 28 September 1972, this first prototype was unveiled to the public, it conducted its maiden flight from Toulouse–Blagnac International Airport on 28 October that year.[6]: 39 [9]: 34 [11]: 51–52 This maiden flight, which was performed a month ahead of schedule, lasted for one hour and 25 minutes; the captain was Max Fischl and the first officer was Bernard Ziegler, son of Henri Ziegler.[10] In 1972, unit cost was US$17.5M.[17] On 5 February 1973, the second prototype performed its maiden flight.[6]: 39 The flight test program, which involved a total of four aircraft, was relatively problem-free, accumulating 1,580 flight hours throughout.[16]: 22 In September 1973, as part of promotional efforts for the A300, the new aircraft was taken on a six-week tour around North America and South America, to demonstrate it to airline executives, pilots, and would-be customers.[10] Amongst the consequences of this expedition, it had allegedly brought the A300 to the attention of Frank Borman of Eastern Airlines, one of the "big four" U.S. airlines.[18]
Entry into service:
On 15 March 1974, type certificates were granted for the A300 from both German and French authorities, clearing the way for its entry into revenue service.[18] On 23 May 1974, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification was received.[16]: 22 The first production model, the A300B2, entered service in 1974, followed by the A300B4 one year later.[8] Initially, the success of the consortium was poor, in part due to the economic consequences of the 1973 oil crisis,[6]: 40 [8][9]: 34 but by 1979 there were 81 A300 passenger liners in service with 14 airlines, alongside 133 firm orders and 88 options.[18] Ten years after the official launch of the A300, the company had achieved a 26 per cent market share in terms of dollar value, enabling Airbus Industries to proceed with the development of its second aircraft, the Airbus A310.[18]
Design:
The Airbus A300 is a wide-body medium-to-long range airliner; it has the distinction of being the first twin-engine wide-body aircraft in the world.[8][9]: 34 [12]: 57, 60 [19] In 1977, the A300 became the first Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS)-compliant aircraft, due to its high performance and safety standards.[6]: 40 Another world-first of the A300 is the use of composite materials on a commercial aircraft, which were used on both secondary and later primary airframe structures, decreasing overall weight and improving cost-effectiveness.[19] Other firsts included the pioneering use of center-of-gravity control, achieved by transferring fuel between various locations across the aircraft, and electrically signaled secondary flight controls.[20]
The A300 is powered by a pair of underwing turbofan engines, either General Electric CF6 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines; the sole use of underwing engine pods allowed for any suitable turbofan engine to be more readily used.[12]: 57 The lack of a third tail-mounted engine, as per the trijet configuration used by some competing airliners, allowed for the wings to be located further forwards and to reduce the size of the vertical stabilizer and elevator, which had the effect of increasing the aircraft's flight performance and fuel efficiency.[3]: 50 [16]: 21
Airbus partners had employed the latest technology, some of which having been derived from Concorde, on the A300. According to Airbus, new technologies adopted for the airliner were selected principally for increased safety, operational capability, and profitability.[19] Upon entry into service in 1974, the A300 was a very advanced plane, which went on to influence later airliner designs. The technological highlights include advanced wings by de Havilland (later BAE Systems) with supercritical airfoil sections for economical performance and advanced aerodynamically efficient flight control surfaces. The 5.64 m (222 in) diameter circular fuselage section allows an eight-abreast passenger seating and is wide enough for 2 LD3 cargo containers side by side. Structures are made from metal billets, reducing weight. It is the first airliner to be fitted with wind shear protection. Its advanced autopilots are capable of flying the aircraft from climb-out to landing, and it has an electrically controlled braking system.
Later A300s incorporated other advanced features such as the Forward-Facing Crew Cockpit (FFCC), which enabled a two-pilot flight crew to fly the aircraft alone without the need for a flight engineer, the functions of which were automated; this two-man cockpit concept was a world-first for a wide-body aircraft.[8][16]: 23–24 [20] Glass cockpit flight instrumentation, which used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors to display flight, navigation, and warning information, along with fully digital dual autopilots and digital flight control computers for controlling the spoilers, flaps, and leading-edge slats, were also adopted upon later-built models.[19][21] Additional composites were also made use of, such as carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), as well as their presence in an increasing proportion of the aircraft's components, including the spoilers, rudder, air brakes, and landing gear doors.[22] Another feature of later aircraft was the addition of wingtip fences, which improved aerodynamic performance and thus reduced cruise fuel consumption by about 1.5% for the A300-600.[23]
In addition to passenger duties, the A300 became widely used by air freight operators; according to Airbus, it is the best selling freight aircraft of all time.[20] Various variants of the A300 were built to meet customer demands, often for diverse roles such as aerial refueling tankers, freighter models (new-build and conversions), combi aircraft, military airlifter, and VIP transport. Perhaps the most visually unique of the variants is the A300-600ST Beluga, an oversize cargo-carrying model operated by Airbus to carry aircraft sections between their manufacturing facilities.[20] The A300 was the basis for, and retained a high level of commonality with, the second airliner produced by Airbus, the smaller Airbus A310.[19]
Operational history:
On 23 May 1974, the first A300 to enter service performed the first commercial flight of the type, flying from Paris to London, for Air France.[6]: 39 [18]
Immediately after the launch, sales of the A300 were weak for some years, with most orders going to airlines that had an obligation to favor the domestically made product – notably Air France and Lufthansa, the first two airlines to place orders for the type.[3]: 50–52 [18] Following the appointment of Bernard Lathière as Henri Ziegler's replacement, an aggressive sales approach was adopted. Indian Airlines was the world's first domestic airline to purchase the A300, ordering three aircraft with three options. However, between December 1975 and May 1977, there were no sales for the type. During this period a number of "whitetail" A300s – completed but unsold aircraft – were completed and stored at Toulouse, and production fell to half an aircraft per month amid calls to pause production completely.[18]
During the flight testing of the A300B2, Airbus held a series of talks with Korean Air on the topic of developing a longer-range version of the A300, which would become the A300B4. In September 1974, Korean Air placed an order for four A300B4s with options for two further aircraft; this sale was viewed as significant as it was the first non-European international airline to order Airbus aircraft. Airbus had viewed South-East Asia as a vital market that was ready to be opened up and believed Korean Air to be the 'key'.[8][16]: 23 [18]
Airlines operating the A300 on short haul routes were forced to reduce frequencies to try and fill the aircraft. As a result, they lost passengers to airlines operating more frequent narrow body flights. Eventually, Airbus had to build its own narrowbody aircraft (the A320) to compete with the Boeing 737 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80. The savior of the A300 was the advent of ETOPS, a revised FAA rule which allows twin-engine jets to fly long-distance routes that were previously off-limits to them. This enabled Airbus to develop the aircraft as a medium/long range airliner.
In 1977, US carrier Eastern Air Lines leased four A300s as an in-service trial.[18] CEO Frank Borman was impressed that the A300 consumed 30% less fuel, even less than expected, than his fleet of L-1011s. Borman proceeded to order 23 A300s, becoming the first U.S. customer for the type. This order is often cited as the point at which Airbus came to be seen as a serious competitor to the large American aircraft-manufacturers Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.[6]: 40 [8][18] Aviation author John Bowen alleged that various concessions, such as loan guarantees from European governments and compensation payments, were a factor in the decision as well.[3]: 52 The Eastern Air Lines breakthrough was shortly followed by an order from Pan Am. From then on, the A300 family sold well, eventually reaching a total of 561 delivered aircraft.[1]
In December 1977, Aerocondor Colombia became the first Airbus operator in Latin America, leasing one Airbus A300B4-2C, named Ciudad de Barranquilla.
During the late 1970s, Airbus adopted a so-called 'Silk Road' strategy, targeting airlines in the Far East.[3]: 52 [18] As a result, The aircraft found particular favor with Asian airlines, being bought by Japan Air System, Korean Air, China Eastern Airlines, Thai Airways International, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, China Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines, Indian Airlines, Trans Australia Airlines and many others. As Asia did not have restrictions similar to the FAA 60-minutes rule for twin-engine airliners which existed at the time, Asian airlines used A300s for routes across the Bay of Bengal and South China Sea.
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft,[24] qualifying for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. In 1982 Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly the A300B4-200FFCC.[25] By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 400 aircraft sold to over forty airlines.[26]
In 1989, Chinese operator China Eastern Airlines received its first A300; by 2006, the airline operated around 18 A300s, making it the largest operator of both the A300 and the A310 at that time. On 31 May 2014, China Eastern officially retired the last A300-600 in its fleet, having begun drawing down the type in 2010.[27]
From 1997 to 2014, a single A300, designated A300 Zero-G, was operated by the European Space Agency (ESA), centre national d'études spatiales (CNES) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) as a reduced-gravity aircraft for conducting research into microgravity; the A300 is the largest aircraft to ever have been used in this capacity. A typical flight would last for two and a half hours, enabling up to 30 parabolas to be performed per flight.[28][29]
By the 1990s, the A300 was being heavily promoted as a cargo freighter.[16]: 24 The largest freight operator of the A300 is FedEx Express, which has 65 A300 aircraft in service as of May 2022.[30] UPS Airlines also operates 52 freighter versions of the A300.[31]
The final version was the A300-600R and is rated for 180-minute ETOPS. The A300 has enjoyed renewed interest in the secondhand market for conversion to freighters; large numbers were being converted during the late 1990s.[16]: 24–25 The freighter versions – either new-build A300-600s or converted ex-passenger A300-600s, A300B2s and B4s – account for most of the world's freighter fleet after the Boeing 747 freighter.[32]
The A300 provided Airbus the experience of manufacturing and selling airliners competitively. The basic fuselage of the A300 was later stretched (A330 and A340), shortened (A310), or modified into derivatives (A300-600ST Beluga Super Transporter). In 2006, unit cost of an −600F was $105 million.[14] In March 2006, Airbus announced the impending closure of the A300/A310 final assembly line,[33] making them the first Airbus aircraft to be discontinued. The final production A300, an A300F freighter, performed its initial flight on 18 April 2007,[34] and was delivered to FedEx Express on 12 July 2007.[35] Airbus has announced a support package to keep A300s flying commercially. Airbus offers the A330-200F freighter as a replacement for the A300 cargo variants.[36]
The life of UPS's fleet of 52 A300s, delivered from 2000 to 2006, will be extended to 2035 by a flight deck upgrade based around Honeywell Primus Epic avionics; new displays and flight management system (FMS), improved weather radar, a central maintenance system, and a new version of the current enhanced ground proximity warning system. With a light usage of only two to three cycles per day, it will not reach the maximum number of cycles by then. The first modification will be made at Airbus Toulouse in 2019 and certified in 2020.[37] As of July 2017, there are 211 A300s in service with 22 operators, with the largest operator being FedEx Express with 68 A300-600F aircraft.[38]
Variants:
A300B1 - The A300B1 was the first variant to take flight. It had a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 132 t (291,000 lb), was 51 m (167 ft) long and was powered by two General Electric CF6-50A engines.[16]: 21 [39]: 41 Only two prototypes of the variant were built before it was adapted into the A300B2, the first production variant of the airliner.[6]: 39 The second prototype was leased to Trans European Airways in 1974.[39]: 54
A300B2 -
A300B2-100:
Responding to a need for more seats from Air France, Airbus decided that the first production variant should be larger than the original prototype A300B1. The CF6-50A powered A300B2-100 was 2.6 m (8.5 ft) longer than the A300B1 and had an increased MTOW of 137 t (302,000 lb), allowing for 30 additional seats and bringing the typical passenger count up to 281, with capacity for 20 LD3 containers.[40]: 10 [41][39]: 17 Two prototypes were built and the variant made its maiden flight on 28 June 1973, became certified on 15 March 1974 and entered service with Air France on 23 May 1974.[39]: 27, 53 [40]: 10
A300B2-200:
For the A300B2-200, originally designated as the A300B2K, Krueger flaps were introduced at the leading-edge root, the slat angles were reduced from 20 degrees to 16 degrees, and other lift related changes were made in order to introduce a high-lift system. This was done to improve performance when operating at high-altitude airports, where the air is less dense and lift generation is reduced.[42]: 52, 53 [43] The variant had an increased MTOW of 142 t (313,000 lb) and was powered by CF6-50C engines, was certified on 23 June 1976, and entered service with South African Airways in November 1976.[39]: 40 [40]: 12 CF6-50C1 and CF6-50C2 models were also later fitted depending on customer requirements, these became certified on 22 February 1978 and 21 February 1980 respectively.[39]: 41 [40]: 12
A300B2-320:
The A300B2-320 introduced the Pratt & Whitney JT9D powerplant and was powered by JT9D-59A engines. It retained the 142 t (313,000 lb) MTOW of the B2-200, was certified on 4 January 1980, and entered service with Scandinavian Airlines on 18 February 1980, with only four being produced.[39]: 99, 112 [40]: 14
A300B4 -
A300B4-100:
The initial A300B4 variant, later named the A300B4-100, included a centre fuel tank for an increased fuel capacity of 47.5 tonnes (105,000 lb), and had an increased MTOW of 157.5 tonnes (347,000 lb).[44][42]: 38 It also featured Krueger flaps and had a similar high-lift system to what was later fitted to the A300B2-200.[42]: 74 The variant made its maiden flight on 26 December 1974, was certified on 26 March 1975, and entered service with Germanair in May 1975.[39]: 32, 54 [40]: 16
A300B4-200:
The A300B4-200 had an increased MTOW of 165 tonnes (364,000 lb) and featured an additional optional fuel tank in the rear cargo hold, which would reduce the cargo capacity by two LD3 containers.[40]: 19 [42]: 69 The variant was certified on 26 April 1979.[40]: 19
A300-600 - The A300-600, officially designated as the A300B4-600, was slightly longer than the A300B2 and A300B4 variants and had an increased interior space from using a similar rear fuselage to the Airbus A310, this allowed it to have two additional rows of seats.[42]: 79 It was initially powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4H1 engines, but was later fitted with General Electric CF6-80C2 engines, with Pratt & Whitney PW4156 or PW4158 engines being introduced in 1986.[42]: 82 Other changes include an improved wing featuring a recambered trailing edge, the incorporation of simpler single-slotted Fowler flaps, the deletion of slat fences, and the removal of the outboard ailerons after they were deemed unnecessary on the A310.[45] The variant made its first flight on 8 July 1983, was certified on 9 March 1984, and entered service in June 1984 with Saudi Arabian Airlines.[40]: 42 [39]: 58 A total of 313 A300-600s (all versions) have been sold. The A300-600 uses the A310 cockpits, featuring digital technology and electronic displays, eliminating the need for a flight engineer. The FAA issues a single type rating which allows operation of both the A310 and A300-600. A300-600: (Official designation: A300B4-600) The baseline model of the −600 series. A300-620C: (Official designation: A300C4-620) A convertible-freighter version. Four delivered between 1984 and 1985. A300-600F: (Official designation: A300F4-600) The freighter version of the baseline −600. A300-600R: (Official designation: A300B4-600R) The increased-range −600, achieved by an additional trim fuel tank in the tail. First delivery in 1988 to American Airlines; all A300s built since 1989 (freighters included) are −600Rs. Japan Air System (later merged into Japan Airlines) took delivery of the last new-built passenger A300, an A300-622R, in November 2002. A300-600RC: (Official designation: A300C4-600R) The convertible-freighter version of the −600R. Two were delivered in 1999. A300-600RF: (Official designation: A300F4-600R) The freighter version of the −600R. All A300s delivered between November 2002 and 12 July 2007 (last ever A300 delivery) were A300-600RFs.
A310 (A300B10)-
Airbus had demand for an aircraft smaller than the A300. On 7 July 1978, the A310 (initially the A300B10) was launched with orders from Swissair and Lufthansa. On 3 April 1982, the first prototype conducted its maiden flight and it received its type certification on 11 March 1983.
Keeping the same eight-abreast cross-section, the A310 is 6.95 m (22.8 ft) shorter than the initial A300 variants, and has a smaller 219 m2 (2,360 sq ft) wing, down from 260 m2 (2,800 sq ft). The A310 introduced a two-crew glass cockpit, later adopted for the A300-600 with a common type rating. It was powered by the same GE CF6-80 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D then PW4000 turbofans. It can seat 220 passengers in two classes, or 240 in all-economy, and can fly up to 5,150 nmi (9,540 km). It has overwing exits between the two main front and rear door pairs.
In April 1983, the aircraft entered revenue service with Swissair and competed with the Boeing 767–200, introduced six months before. Its longer range and ETOPS regulations allowed it to be operated on transatlantic flights. Until the last delivery in June 1998, 255 aircraft were produced, as it was succeeded by the larger Airbus A330-200. It has cargo aircraft versions, and was derived into the Airbus A310 MRTT military tanketransport.
Airbus A300-ST (Beluga)
Commonly referred to as the Airbus Beluga or "Airbus Super Transporter," these five airframes are used by Airbus to ferry parts between the company's disparate manufacturing facilities, thus enabling workshare distribution. They replaced the four Aero Spacelines Super Guppys previously used by Airbus.
ICAO code: A3ST
Operators:
As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service. The five largest operators were FedEx Express (70), UPS Airlines (52), European Air Transport Leipzig (23), Iran Air (11), and Mahan Air (11).[46]

So most hbararians say we have the best tech and given the TPS and overall transaction milestones we have been posting one could argue that this is the proof in the pudding.
So now that we have proved it all works with a larger scale real world use case (Avery Dennison) why do we need to keep dishing out free tokens to “help with adoption” and “build the ecosystem” if our stuff works and the competitions doesn’t why don’t we simply declare victory and say we are open for business and start monetising the network?
Rather than continue diluting the price of Hbar we could burn the remaining 20bn coins as part of the statement above.
This would mean:
1)the folk who were the early investors and actually funded Hederas capability would probably instantly be in the black rather than various degrees in the red.
2) With 30bn in circulation there would be plenty of coins for security purpose.
3) we would start actually monetising the network rather than throwing away investor funds at anything that moved.
The one thing I dont like about crypto is people talking about them as “projects” and inferring that they should be given all the time in the world which is ok when it’s someone else’s money …ours.
I’d like to see more concrete milestones of monetising the network rather than everyone assuming something amazing will suddenly happen once the coins are all circulating…there’s every chance they simply revise the upper limit to say 100bn and keep the ‘project’ going until people get bored of swapping their hard earned fiat money for Monopoly money.
A more skeptical view but Id like to understand if anyone sees it the same and if there is a technical or hard constraint to what I’m saying then I’d like to know what it is…thoughts?

I’m so sick of doing all of the housework.
I’ve lived with my boyfriend, now husband, for over 3 years and his lack of being able to complete basic chores has been an issue and source of arguing since the entire time we’ve shared a house.
This is bullshit. I grew up with a SAHM who was did nothing but complain about cooking/cleaning/gardening/grocery shopping/household management while my dad did very little to help. They love each other, but she clearly felt used and like she was in a never ending cycle of work whilst my dad could at least get home and relax.
I never wanted that for me. I worked hard in school and uni, I got a good job, then I went and messed it up by falling for my best friend who it turns out is incredibly lazy. It’s unfair. We both work full time, we both contribute 50/50 to the mortgage and savings, and yet I’m stuck with 95% of household chores and management.
I don’t get any break. I get home from work, I cook while he lounges/plays guitaworks out, we eat, I do dishes, we go to bed. On the weekends I vacuum and clean and garden. It feels unfair. I’m not a SAHM. I work a hard, emotionally draining job that involves a lot of overtime, being exposed to dangerous situations/people and being verbally abused often. I have no time for self care to ward off burnout because all of my spare time on weekdays is dedicated to housework.
I have tried a chore list/chart, I’ve tried talking to him, he doesn’t get it. He procrastinates any task I ask of him. Example: he broke a door 8 months ago and despite weekly reminding he still hasn’t fixed it. My dad came over yesterday to do it. The light in our living room and bedroom went out around 3 months ago and he changed the bulb 3 days ago after I called my brother to do it (I’m 7 months pregnant and not keen on ladders right now).
My husband is currently mad at me because I asked him to do last nights dishes. He’s supposed to cook and do dishes on weekends because he says it’s too much for him after work. I cooked last night and tonight because we need to save money and he always orders takeout. All he had to do was last nights dishes, but at 4pm I finished cleaning the bathroom and and I emerge to find that he’s still playing guitar and watching tv. I told him to do the dishes, that I am sick of asking him to do chores, that he should do them unprompted before doing his leisure stuff. And he’s mad because I didn’t ask nicer.
I am sick of being his mothesupervisor of chores! I am sick of asking. He says I should ask for help when I need it. It’s not help, though! It’s his set of chores! Why am I stuck with the bulk of the housework when I work and pay just as much as him?!
I feel like I’ve failed. I’m having a daughter in 3 months and i wanted to set a good example for her. I wanted her to grow up thinking that we live in a world of equality, with a mum who works and parents who split chores evenly. I didn’t want her growing up with this 1950s housewife mentality like previous generations did. But that mentality is so heavily ingrained in society, I’ll never escape it and neither will my child. At least in the 50s women weren’t expected to work. Now we have to work AND be housewives.
This is flat out bullshit.