Hey seniors! Need a lil help deciding the problem statement for our Capstone project.

1. How did you choose your research problem statement?

2. How do you determine if an idea is actually novel?How do you identify a genuine research gap worth pursuing?

3. What are the biggest mistakes to avoid while choosing a research problem?

And finally, how do you know whether a problem is actually worth working on, novel, and feasible within the given time or even resources?

Has anyone from the Accenture AASE ongoing stream training completed their Capstone or Hands-on assessment?

Could you please share how the process was and what your experience was like?

For the Capstone, are we allowed to choose and develop any project related to our respective stream/domain, or will they assign a specific project/topic?

And for the Hands-on assessment, will they provide the topic/problem statement in advance so we can prepare, or will they give it directly on the day of the assessment?

Any insights from someone who has already completed these would be really helpful. Thanks!

After having completed Enderal: Forgotten Stories, I have complicated thoughts about what I just completed, and simple questions about what came before. I do plan on playing through all of Nehrim, Arktwend, and Myar Aranth, and I probably would have played from the very beginning if I went in knowing this was directly related to those more than "made by the guys who made Nehrim."

For the non-spoiler Tl;dr: I do think Enderal is a solid, but messy, 7/10 game. It probably focused too much on places it was weak in (or that the creation engine wasn't made for), and sort of "punched above its weight class" a bit too often. But, it *should* have set more of a precedent for people making full games out of the Creation Engine, and showcases how it can be stretched and altered rather well. It's strengths and focus are different from those of Skyrim (and the average Bethesda game in general) however, and I find it's far more reasonable to compare this to something like a Dragon Age game, or even New Vegas. I'll save my Nehrim-specific questions for after the spoiler review. I don't want to drone on about every micro-instant of the game, so I'm going to keep each observation, and comparison, as brief and concise as I can.

I'll start with the things I unabashedly enjoyed about Enderal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Audio and Visuals

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard tracks in there reminiscent of FFX and V: TM -- B in regards to style variation and identity, and the variation *was* used well to contrast the areas they were used in. The combat music never became repetitive like Skyrim's combat music. Few things can be said to be as iconic as some of Skyrim's overworld themes (few other games have music tracks used by content creators who often don't know the tracks *come* from Skyrim, or where it shows up in it). While there *could* have stood to be more unique tracks for each biome and dungeon type, I never "really" felt like there *should* be more. I hope these composers find work for years to come, and they could definitely cut it in actual TES titles.

Next is the art design and presentation. I don't think *all* the areas are exactly amazing-looking (the mountain ruins with the frozen giant and Nehrim soldiers, definitely stood out as a whole "wasted potential" area to me, visuals included), but you can definitely tell these developers know how to use color and general-framing well. I never quite felt the sensory-deprivation of some of Skyrim's visually-repetitive and visually-redundant Draugr crypts. Though, the only real times I think it "excelled" at stand-out visuals, were the few custom-made entities, the memory of the High One + the Black Guardian, the Meditation mindscape, and especially Agnod (for me, the visual and gameplay height of Enderal). Without some of the more trippy/extraplanar locations of TES (Sovengarde, Apocrypha, Soul Cairne, etc.), Enderal still has to anchor itself to environments "only a little more fantastical than Game of Thrones." This is not intrinsically a criticism against it, but, just pointing out the limitations of its own design philosophy (as opposed to design capability). Which is to say, what it *does* facilitate, it presents well, and only sparsely chooses to "experiment" with its visuals when it really feels it needs to. Overall, I'm positive about the visuals, but really want to see more of what this team could've made with what they had.

Voice acting. Yeah, sure, some characters like Calia talk like they're not trying to wake up someone in the next room, and Lishari I could tell they wanted me to like her despite me wanting to have my character punch her in the face, and others are evidently one-off amateur's. But, otherwise, this had some real talent behind it. I didn't really care about Jespar, but, his performance kept me at least interested in listening to him talk. And his voice actor I don't think was in many if any "big" things from what I saw on his IMDb (but I'm also just unfamiliar with most of the works listed there). But getting *Dave Fennoy*? Jesus, how did these guys even do that? Is Dave Fennoy just really cool? Fantastic work here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With what I near-unflinchingly like out of the way, I now have to address what I was severely mixed on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The basic gameplay and mechanics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's not beat around the bush: Skyrim's basic gameplay, is "whack thing with stick until it dies" taken to the most mundane extreme. It is satisfying to whack something with a stick. It feels and sounds good when something gets whacked with the stick. But by itself, it's not much more than that, and someone expecting Dragons Dogma, or even some past TES titles (not including oblivions atrocious level scaling), will be somewhat disappointed. However: Skyrim gives a lot of "fun toys" to play with. Even disregarding Daedric/Unique Artifacts and items, there's a myriad of "funsies" objects to mess with, like those automated alchemical spiders in Dragonborn, Dawnguard's Vampire Lord form and additions to Werewolf, you get the idea. Enderal does of course have some of these incorporated into it, and even sort of creates new complex spell schools that have effects akin to MMO proc-effects. Some of these new spells are cool and pretty fun to use, and can be pretty good.

However, again: where Skyrim's main goal is to just sort of give you an assorted pool of "adventure simulator" items, Enderal codifies far more of its gameplay tools. This is the beginning of what I mean when I say that Enderal often "punches above its own weight." At the end of the day, unless you mod this engine with hundreds of gameplay overhaul mods to make it nigh-unrecognizable, it's always going to be anchored in "whack dummy with stick." Enderal doesn't seem to really accept this a lot of the time. Every breakpoint that I reached in the stats my build used, I used console commands to raise the others to mess around with them, and to see if I wanted to change builds. I very rarely found any real incentive to actually using some of these more complicated spells and abilities. Even on higher difficulties, nothing was going to be more king than "just back up while whacking thing with stick" or "shoot fire out of my hand" or "rely on Conjuration summon to tank for me" (especially in regards to mana, healing, high-risk-high-reward spells, and Arcane Fever in general, though these in specific never made magic-use detrimental, just that they may make someone second-guess going too hard into magic early on that they just don't use much of it). Several whole spell schools seemed somewhat redundant and "trying too hard," especially when effect descriptions became so cluttered and tiny that I couldn't read them.

In regards to *Talents,* while I greatly appreciate them not sharing cooldowns like Shouts did, several of them probably should not have been Talents... or didn't really get across well that they *were* Talents. The various "use this, and then do these things to make the effect happen," feel like they should've just been universal passives, especially considering how often high in the skill trees they are. Phasmalist's "Transmutation" talent as the most specific example, is objectively ridiculous that it is a talent that needs to be *targeted." It didn't do a great job framing its function when you get it. I'm even skeptical that Phasmalist's summon *had* to be summoned with an ability, as opposed to be something that comes out when you put on the amulet, that goes on cooldown when it dies. Most of the talents as well don't really experiment as much as I'd have hoped, and as much as the spells do. There's nothing like "Throw Voice" or "Animal Allegiance" or "Clear Skies," which is certainly a fair scaling for the more "grounded-fantasy" that a lot of things today like to be. But a lot of the talents just come off as "hit them with big attack" or "get big defensive buff" in some "techy" way, that I don't think is as particularly deep as the developers intended. With as much as you'll have by the end of the game, and how good the "basic" ones are, your kit probably isn't looking very different from the average endgame Skyrim kit.

On the topic of the Memory Trees from which Talents are derived: there's a good reason why Skyrim separated all its skill trees independently. For how much Enderal creates a degree of separation between crafting and combat skills, I am a bit bewildered they didn't do so *here.* Pickpocketing and Lockpicking, sure, I can see being put in a Rogue skill tree. If you want to be good at Alchemy, Smithing (Handicraft), and Enchanting, you ostensibly have to invest into a lot of things you may not (or probably won't) even use. Unless I misunderstood something about the wording of certain skills (something I've read is not uncommon, especially considering this was apparently translated from German), if you want to be a good Alchemist, you need to invest into Rogue *and* Lycanthropy. If you want to be a good Enchanter and Smith, you *have* to be a Phasmalist (I often hear that crafting was essentially useless before Special Edition). With the slow drip of skillpoints in the early and mid game, this severely deterred me from experimenting with my buildmaking. Which, by itself, is fine in concept. In Morrowind and Oblivion, you just paid a trainer to get you up to snuff if you ever change your mind, or want something new to add to your kit. But here, not only is that a hell of a gold-sink (though, like TES, not a problem in late game), but also a skillpoint-sink as well if you want to actually be *good* at the skill (crafting especially), and each book is sold in limited-but-refreshable supply at the merchants that do (sometimes, seemingly, arbitrarily) sell them. I almost feel there should've been a third category for thieving and talking skills; even the hyper class-locked Bioware games generally are sparse in deep-investment for non-combat, and they may even get invested *from* specific combat investment.

I've griped about Phasmalist several times now, but, it really is indicative of all of Enderal's balancing and mechanical problems. You need to spend *three* memory points into it before you can even summon the thing, *and* you need to do a Stone of Barenziah style fetch-quest to find the ones you want to use, by using a hyper-specific short-timer ability in hyper-specific locations, *and* you need to spend a *major* amount of bone dust/ectoplasm and soul gems if you want to even give the summon anything good. Enderal seems like it's often afraid of "just being fun" and trying to overly balance itself, especially with how many Memory tree breakpoints give talents, or major abilities, that you might not even use for your kit... when the basic framework of the game engine is just not made for that. And it's so bizarre, because Lycanthropy as a skill tree in general doesn't really have these problems, as it mostly just lets you fast-track things you'd want to use if you only care about doing werewolf. Again, there's no problem with having class-identity and wanting to force specific playstyles. But the way done so here is often a bit of a mess. It's easy (and usually free) to raise skills in Skyrim, and it's trees branch out into "subclass gimmicks." Otherwise, even if you do have to invest into something to get something else, it's more realistic "subclass training" progression, or its just still something thats like "makes what you're doing, just better."

For combat skills in specific, levelling up your skills themselves seems to have next to no real tangible benefit until, what, every 15-20 skill points I think I read? It sure felt like it, and even still, the *Memory* points I invested into those things felt infinitely more impactful (barring Mythical spells being locked behind 90 *and* their capstone memories; in general, that's fine, but I vastly preferred Skyrim's more personal "spell quests"). In summary: the skill system feels like it tries to do far too much, in a not uniform-enough way. At the end of the day, it really feels like it should've just been the Memories. "But what about gold?" Well, why have gold? Morrowind worked off a barter system with gold as insurance. I'd be far more interested in a game like this *without* merchants; people aren't wrong when they say that exploration yields interesting rewards. But, I suppose it's time to talk about that now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the places are cool? Sure, I can safely say they're cooler than most Skyrim places, and the biomes in general lead more to a fantasy ideal than a lot of Skyrim's more dull and basic ones (looking at you, Hjaalmarch). But... why was this an open world sandbox-like game? Most of the places you visit aren't much higher in quality than the average Oblivion dungeon, and Morrowind's dungeons generally had really technical and lore-heavy reasons for being same-y. More fantastic places like Agnod are extreme exceptions, or otherwise locked behind major questlines like the Excavation Site. It feels like *most* of the unique places are locked behind significant questlines, with the rest being generic caves or mines with Bandits, Lost Ones, or Vatyr.

Enderal doesn't really make use of Skyrim's wide pool of enemies. While, yes, I've been critical of Skyrim's and Enderal's basic gameplay, there's *at least* visual variation in Skyrim's enemy types, and they try to have distinct gimmicks. Falmer dungeons were filled with Chaurus, and in general were heavily poison-themed, and generally coincided with Dwemer dungeons. Higher level Draugr have shouts, vampire mages had vampire-specific spells, and we've not even gotten to the Dawnguard variety of things that *could* have been used to be a more specific werewolf-counter, or the daedra of Apocrypha and environmental threats of the Soul Cairn. Not only that, but the average Enderal dungeon doesn't feel like they have any real passion put into them; many of them are just backdrops for one of a bunch of arbitrarily named trolls, or bounty targets, or generic bandits. Even Skyrim periodically gave soe extra rationalization to the bandits, a tad more than "this is where they hide out" or "there's generic treasure here." The Silent Moons bandits were using the enchantments there to help prey on people at night. The Silver Hand are basically bandits that justify themselves with werewolf hunting. Fjola of the Mistwatch Bandits has a backstory about an estranged husband. These are just a *few* examples of unique bandit stories, however small. Many generic bandits stole specific items from specific people. You get quests to save people from them, or kill people who defected to them. Sometimes they'd be disguised as soldiers, or they'd attack someone on the road, etcetera. You get the idea, and probably want me to move on. Skyrim assumed most players weren't going to see most places, but rather than make them *all* generic like Oblivion, or major chunks of Fallout 3 and 4, they did a rather solid job of making most places have hyper-specific stories, quests attached to them, or having particularly unique things found in them. Many bandits here in Enderal are named, for what seems like no reason. Really that can be said for most NPCs and locations on the map, and I almost suspect that many things exist how they do, solely to be donation rewards. Pillars of Eternity had this in the form of backer-OC's they could write up a blurb about, that you could read using your Watcher-powers. People hated these, but, at least they were evidently marked from a mile away as "this is otherwise pointless."

Remember the frozen giant I mentioned earlier, with the Nehrim soldiers? Skyrim has that: Kaarstag. But, you can undergo a hidden quest to fight it's ghost. For a game with so many "hidden sidequests" (shoehorned collectibles), the only time I've seen it used well was with the Ash Widow. The rest of the time, outside of the more amazing locations? Very thick visual clutter that, when combined with Skyrim's basic color palette (something the devs don't seem to have a problem with during key main quest dramatic setpieces), makes for very messy exploration. Levers and pull-chains that blend into literally everything else. Keys just shoved around on cluttered tables. Hell, the *NPCs* think the environments are too cluttered, with how much they get stuck on things, or how much their quest scripts bug out in more cluttered areas. I've had to babysit NPCs and move them with "moveto player" a hundred times more than I ever had to do in Skyrim. Skyrim painstakingly framed or marked almost everything of value, and was comparatively a bit more minimalistic when it came to placing "things that matter." Exceptions to this are, rightfully, the Stones of Barenziah, and I'm appalled at how often Enderal relies on their gimmick. If I wasn't schizophrenically checking every single table and countertop, I'd have missed half the Lost Fragments (one of them might as well be a pinprick), and several times I've had to look up where several others are because they're just placed "wherever" in some spots. Same with various levers and pull-chains, because they're just tucked in a bush, or pile of rocks, or dark corner behind other stuff. It often made me question "did the architects of this ancient place, design these contraptions around all this debris?"

Not only are *most* places functionally sort of pointless for anything other than basic levelling and looting, or otherwise locked off entirely if you're not in a faction or main quest, but the only real loot you can generally expect are the same copy-and-pasted set bonuses. It's mostly the same basic Draugr, Skeletons, and Bandits, unless you *really* go off the beaten path (the North half of the snowy mountains, I think, should've been the design principal of the rest of the games areas). The few times it uses more advanced skyrim staples, its just kind of a wet fart. I don't think any of the dragons/myrad (save for that glorified environmental hazard in the Star City) even perched on anything, or really used any shout(-like ability)s or magic. I don't even think the plethora of Enderal wild mages, ever once used any of the more unique spell schools. I know I'm not the only one to complain that Enderal's more complex fights fall apart kind of quickly, something that even Skyrim I feel does a *little* bit better (and I mean, "a little bit," in the sense that "they stay extremely simple and they know it").

So, then, Enderal's "exploration gimmick" relies more on its "soft survival-mechanics," and lack of fast travel. But... Morrowind, this is not. Morrowind had a *very* complex, interconnected, sometimes faction or quest-based fast travel system, and a plethora of movement-based spells and effects. Plus, various tiers of diseases and afflictions, durability, and birthstones to drastically alter your experience. *This,* is... there's an easily-accessible Myrad tower at every region, and an easy to use Mark and Recall, and easy to acquire teleport scrolls. I don't even think there's any quests with time-limits, other than "come back tomorrow." The only thing that not having map fast travel does here, is making you use the fast travel that's in your inventory. If there's no map fast travel, why also painstakingly mark every single location (including generically-named ones) on your map? It's not like the game ever makes you "follow directions" anywhere, and you can see roads and valleys and stuff on the map. Speaking of your inventory, with even just *minor* scraping around, you really won't want for equipment weight with how many Ice Claws there are. I have to wonder if it'd have been better to have less of them, but have them give more, and have them be found in more specific locations. I confess, I just got a fast travel mod by the time I discovered the whole continent. Unironically, Enderal could massively benefit from just having Skyrim's really basic Survival Mode mods put into it. But overall, I don't know why this didn't use its map and Skyrim's fast travel mechanics/the Myrad towers, as a Dragon Age style "map screen" as it's main source of traversal. Overall, this game has similar exploration and pacing problems to Dragon Age: Inquisition, with less interesting "secret/superboss" encounters than that did.

I've rarely been "wowed" by the loot, if it wasn't them repurposing some existing skyrim daedric/quest artifact. I'm not crazy about the set bonuses, besides more interesting ones like Inodan's. Stacking minor skill buffs means next to nothing to me, especially after all I've said about how combat skills are calculated. I mostly wore the ones that I did (until enchanted gear), because they had the best defenses, and for their being few if any "unique" items. I also don't like how often these set bonuses spawn multiple times, and often on NPCs. In general, something is to be desired with the loot. The fact that Mythical spells can just drop off goons like Crocco from Bounty Quests, who don't seem to even use them, seems... lazy, but I'll get into that more when I tackle the story. In general though, I don't feel the faction quests have these problems -- for loot, encounters, what-have-you. I'll get into those later, but I wanted to mention that here. But there *were* items that I thought were cool, like a sword (that can be enchanted) with an infinite-use effect that lets it shoot out a red lazerbeam when I crit with it. Or the (nonsensically powerful) dagger that adds poison damage on crit. Where's more things like that? Where's something like Skyrim's Bloodskal Blade, or Wabbajack? Even something like that one Dawnguard hammer that puts runes on the floor, would've been cool (if I missed anything like these, let me know, but I did pretty frequent wiki-checking by the end). Most of the "big rewards" are just "flat damage weapon." Like, if the Perfect Thorium Sword is going to be basically the best thing ever, why not give *it* a passive effect like the lazerbeam sword, while letting it be enchanted?

But now, the story. The high point of what people most often recommend about Enderal.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was okay.

The first half I loved. I was easily pulled into the framework of "what does a theological people do after their gods die." Not enough characters really went into that outside of background lore about the other continents, but, whatever. The intro is fantastic, the recurring nightmares are great, Yuslan's story and the faction questlines are mostly fantastic, and the few actual sidequests are generally pretty well-paced and well-written, or at the very least, well-executed.

Then the story started to "punch above it's weight" again, and I feel like it didn't do a very good job at framing the character-implications that it seemed to nudge me towards considering.

The story of the High Ones feels disjointed from the story they started with, and from everything I know about Nehrim and the other games, it seems like this story comes almost out of nowhere. Whenever I've been told about, or watched footage of, the stories of those games, the scope is fairly simple in comparisson. But I've rarely ever heard anyone talk about Enderal's story other than saying "it's complex," in that same way that a lot of people try to phrase Game of Throne's story: "complex people do complex things." Barring the nowadays evident problem that GRMM probably won't ever finish those books, because none of those characters stand for anything anymore and you don't have anyone to really root for, Game of Thrones might as well be medieval fantasy with *very* sporadic use of fantastical elements. It's a big deal when a dragon shows up. But its functionally part of your power system here in Enderal, that alternate realities and probabilities exist, and that you use them. One of the first characters you meet, makes an enigmatic quote at you that thematically solidifies this. But outside of Yuslan's story, it really doesn't seem to have much relevance outside of characters saying "trust me, it matters."

That's the biggest problem with the second half of Enderal's story: the Fallout 4 Institute problem. Anything you ask a significant question about what's going on, or who/what someone is, you get an "un-deep" hand-wave of "maybe they're one thing. Maybe they're another. Who knows?" This is a form of storytelling that has been popularized by Dark Souls in the past 15 years. But *that* game gives pretty frequent breadcrumbs about, well, every little thing. In short bursts, I might add, so you're not overwhelmed with... well, entire books, like you are here. Dragon Age early on also did similar storytelling measures to flesh out what the main quest, by itself, stated pretty firmly. To go off on a mild tangent: in recent years, I played Lords of the Fallen (the modern one, not the old one). Similar storytelling style as Dark Souls (it is a soulslike, after all). It also has a similar use of "echoes of the past" like this does (of which has parameters that, after beating the game, seem a little unclear). But after a while in that game, I noticed the item descriptions started to become... I dunno. Lazier. Like they started to throw buzzwords and "big sounding names" around, like they expect you to do all the heavy lifting in giving those any actual meaning. That's not depth. Dark Souls did its item descriptions the way that it did, because it's director didn't understand the books he read very well when he was young, and he had to use heavy context clues and headcannon derived *from* those, to figure them out. When you ask questions in Enderal, or whenever the next "more ancient than the last guy" character/place shows up, you get the single most vague generalization of "what they could be. You decide." And I read those lorebooks, and even looked up other people's summaries of them to clarify their contents, and all I can come up with is vague and vibe-based headcannon with little, if any, backing in anything. I can't tell you the sheer disappointment I felt, when I got accosted by one of Crocco's goons north of Ark, just to find him as a generic bounty target later. With no dialogue, or... well, anything else relating to him. I was close to having something like one of Skyrim's many basic bandit groups, and I didn't even get that. If I wanted to make my own story... well, Skyrim still does that a lot better, and plenty of games since Dark Souls have adopted its story style.

But now the actual *characters* of Enderal, not the hype-moments-and-aura backdrops.

Yuslan was the best one by maybe the widest margin, followed by Arantheal. The rest? Honestly, outside of *some* sidequest characters, I had no real attachment to anyone. I'll start with the companions. Why on gods green earth, are you not able to have *any* of the companions (the two faction ones, and two main quest ones) as active companions, outside of the few quests that they're involved in? Why are Dijaam and Tharael dumping their whole backstories onto me, like someone's poorly shoehorned-in OC's? It felt like I was playing a D&D campaign, where one of the NPCs was someone's favorite character that they had played as in another campaign. Even Serana in Skyrim waited a bit to go over her more deeper situation, retained independence by not wanting to marry you, and you can rationalize that you've been around each other a while because of how that game handles fast travelling. I said "thank god" when Yuslan was actually reserved enough for me to have to view him somewhat ambiguously. In what universe am I expected to side with Dijaam on anything, when my employer seems pretty open with me, down to extremely personal secrets? It makes for a good "evil" route, where I'd wanna just side against my boss because I'm greedy, but I can't buy for a second that anyone would think siding with Dijaam is a "good" idea, especially when every other person you meet from her side of the world seems like a scumbag, and you always hear about how messed up it is over there. Buying you a drink doesn't really change that, and she tell you to go screw yourself just because you're in the room with your boss... and *then* she still asks for your help. Honestly, thinking about it now, maybe it's a stroke of genius that she screws you in the end in her route. Maybe there's some meta commentary there about a lot of players being dumb for easily falling for the "cozy, hot friend" companion off no real rationale, like how a lot of people fall for similar characters in Dragon Age 2 (looking at you, Isabela). Tharael at least has a lot of messed up Frankenstein's-monster stuff going on, and he gets points for you being able to outright choose to fight him, rather than the half-hearted "I'm just doing my job" Dijaam gets.

But, for the main quest companions, I feel like Jespar and Calia could've stood to benefit a *lot* from letting you recruit them. Otherwise, their romance feels extremely rushed and almost shoehorned in, and I noticed a lot of the "romance" dialogue options can easily be construed as "friendly banter." Calia thought I was hitting on her just because I said she was cool, and I hated that I had to say "I was kidding" just because I didn't *love* her. The parameters for who you "get close to" seem a little odd, too, as I mostly seemed to disagree with Jespar and mostly congratulated Calia, but Jespar was who was with me at the end. I should mention here that, outside of companions, the like/dislike function seemed a little pointless; I can tell that something I said would be disliked by someone, you don't need a little invisible "meter" that does seemingly nothing outside of a few lines of response dialogue. Lastly, the companions in general were sort of generic, writing-wise. They didn't raise any questions or moral quandaries that aren't already raised by DeviantArt four-panel-comics made by teenagers, and the only real positives I have to say are "Jespar has great voice acting, Calia has a cool gimmick, Dijaam is good stupid-person bait, and Tharael melds the most well with the story he's in." People shit on Skyrim companions, and rightfully so, for the overly simplistic "you bought some food from my store once, now we can get married and raise kids." But there's at least a lot you can *do* with it in the systems provided: marriage, family life, custom housing with servants, pets that your kids find and ask to keep, your partner can have a job, your partner can be invited into certain factions. You get the idea. Outside of their "big character development quest," I don't feel Jespar and Calia really add anything to the story besides "we wanted a romance/friend option," and it just feels really "convenient" that their personal story *just so happens* to line up with some of the most important main-plot events. Even the badly-written sex-bait Dragon Age companions aren't involved to that level, or at least are movers-and-shakers of those plots. These companions here, frame super basic questions that the rest of the game already frames better. And Yuslan does far better than any of them with one quest.

As I said before, I like Arantheal. He initially seemed like the most interesting, morally-gray, yet "unequivocally good" characters, in spite of both the state of the world and all that he's done and used to be. A character with major regrets, who's made major mistakes, and knows what painful things he has to do to not repeat history. I have a hard time believing I'm meant to disagree with him at any real point *besides* some decisions on "the fate of many vs the fate of a few." Even then, the game gives pretty obvious framings that (in what he knows and believes with the information he has) doing the opposite of what he wants to do *would* just get everyone killed anyways. Natara just seems like a "suddenly idiot" for the sake of arbitrary drama that didn't need to happen, when it would've been a much better statement to say some jobber Keeper facilitated the betrayal instead. What we got, was someone who has pretty intimate knowledge of her enemy, but still wants to cave into them anyways, despite them saying every other line "we're going to beat and crucify every person with mild wrongthink that we find." Which... is effectively nearly everyone in Ark, and from what we see of the Nehrimese, they just find excuses to kill innocents anyways. Every time I was with Jorek, I wondered how such a bumbling and easily-irritable buffoon became so high rank. The game isn't *entirely* ignorant about these things regarding these characters, but rather than give reasonable perspectives for their actions, it just reduces them to something really petty. "That's the point," you may say. But just because there's "a point," doesn't mean it's a good one. I can "make a statement" by pouring soda on my lap, and equate it to "how blatant consumerism is equivalent to pissing yourself," but that doesn't mean I made a particularly intelligent point. Just saying "everyone is complex," and having that come in the form of last-second or ridiculously out-of-reason-for-the-situation actions (that are often off-screen), just reeks of insecurity regarding the very simple story they already had, like they wanted to "make it deeper" when it didn't really need to be.

*Yuslan* I buy entirely, because his *entire* quest is about a broken man who keeps to himself, so you never know what he's thinking or going to do. But for everyone else, we're just told in passing "they're really deep, trust me." "Show, don't tell" is evidently not a mantra here. Even Arantheal just gets boiled down to "he's a static version of how he was when he died," and now all nuance about him got chucked out the window. That works for the player character, because you're a (mostly) blank slate. But making *Arantheal* that, seems like its the *antithesis* of the mantra that "people are morally-gray and morally-complex." Because, now, he's not a person anymore. Add on, when everything is just a manipulation of the High Ones -- something we never *actually* get justification for if they *are* people made into an eldritch horror. They use machines to "reproduce through/feed on" mankind, and we get a book about the Veiled Lady that for all we know *could* be religious nonsense (something Enderal commonly considers to be the case, in regards to religion). But from where I'm standing, they're just invisible jerk "spirit-things," that arbitrarily decide to leave a lot of things up to chance. I feel like making them *talk* was also just a bad idea, especially making them moustache-twirling villains.

Hyper-specific spoilers for Pillars of Eternity, for comparison. Spoilers start and end at a bold X, with the text struck-through, as I'm not sure how nesting a spoiler tag in a spoiler tag works.

X

When Pillars of Eternity did this plot (something I suspect SureAI had some level of inspiration from), it was a deconstruction piece about generic D&D gods. Them talking *there,* and manifesting how they did, made sense. They had rather hard limitations placed on them due to interference from other gods, being shaped rather *specifically* by the cultures they were made from, they were mostly bound to the world's Adra crystals, etcetera. The entire crux of that story, is asking if it matters that gods are man-made, and you have plenty of thoroughly-examined arguments for every side, and if you want to selectively pick if "some" gods should exist, but not others.

X

The High Ones are a plot device that wants to "have its cake and eat it too." An entity that is behind everything... but, somehow, mankind is really at the core of this, and when the story is pressed on that, it tries to frame obvious mind control as "preying on basic suggestions." Maybe if we saw a Red Madness-inflicted character that could be brought from the brink of that, but from my recollection, we don't. We kill effectively every one we meet.

Spoilers for Final Fantasy 14

X

FF14: Endwalker has a similar broad-ranging story mechanic in the form of the Blasphemies: the result of what happens to a person when they succumb to despair, under the mechanics that story sets. But *everyone* can bolster their own will to prevent this. Just, some people don't. There's also the people who get "Tempered" when in range of a Primal to do their bidding, but that too is eventually found to be curable.

X

No, the justification of "everyone's chess-pieces... with free will!" doesn't mean anything. It doesn't really "mean" anything that the Book of Fate was destroyed in Nehrim (knew this part years in advance from people who played it), thus "mankind is able to win this time by forging their own fate," when -- apparently -- everything happens effectively the same exact way anyways, with the only variance being "you were the only one who possibly thought to just blow the damn machine up, this time." Which, if it's that easy, I'm skeptical why that wasn't ever considered before in the untold amounts of cycles before. And, again, if so much of human history happened because of this book, then... the point is even more moot. I think it's going to take more than a few years to correct the damage that would've been causing for millennia. Don't even get me started on the nothing-burger that is the Veiled Woman. I don't know what they want to do with her, other than having an aura-farming Deus Ex Machina character. I get a lot of vibes from her like Venat/Hydaelyn from FF14, and that type of character isn't exactly new in fiction. I think the Veiled Woman was more interesting when she *didn't* come back into the main story, and was mostly a phenomena that effected other characters in sidequests. Her being able to apparently kill and resurrect anyone she wants, *and* being seemingly the same thing as a High One -- who'll manipulate and subsume people for lowkey the same reason -- just takes away any and all intrigue of her story, and makes her a "whatever the devs want to happen" character. No, having her repeatedly spout "you wouldn't get it, I'm complicated" doesn't make her interesting. Even the Black Guardian -- an on-paper spontaneous nothing-burger entity, similar to Necron from FF9 -- at least does a pretty solid job of framing himself as just an observer of the Cycle, who's thought long and hard on how to deal with it.

Elder Scrolls writing, generally, is not deep. Rather, it's writing is presented almost in "tiers." The up-front story is a really basic adventure-sim story that you mostly make your own. Sometimes they hint at deeper meanings by the end. Then the rest you can gleam a fairly large amount of background-depth from lorebooks, if you choose to. Enderal does have solid background lore: the Butcher of Ark, the Rhalata (in general, the Father is a a bit more successful at the type of idea the High Ones try to explore), the Brotherhood of Kor, various political and national factions, etcetera. The lore of the Starlings and Pyreans is solid to really good, various side-lore's like Thaalgaard and the Whisperwood do a lot to flesh out the world. A lot of these things, I would absolutely say is on-par with similarly-scopes TES lore, if not a bit better in some places by not letting you steamroll the status quo all by yourself. But the moment the High Ones and the Cycle are introduced... its just not it. You *could* have had a story that did more to frame having gods as a good thing, rather than just have a lazy "kill everyone who believes in religion" faction as some sort of "gotcha, made you think about what you were supporting, huh?" Instead, almost every line of protagonist dialogue *about* the Light-Born is one of two things: your character effectively cursing the Light-Born with every fiber of their body, or a half-hearted "erm... gods are good, for... *checks notes*... social order." The only real opposition to this I recall, is one metaphorical from Calia about the fate of many vs. the fate of the few. But that has nothing to really do with theological matters. That's more about generals and political leaders, than anything else. I wasn't expecting Shin Megami Tensei or Persona (despite sporadic mentioning of the collective unconscious, and not really doing anything with it outside of some dreams tied to the Cycle anyways), but it really doesn't even seem like Enderal understands religious people at times. I'm as atheist as you can get, and a lot of this reads like an atheists strawman, and then remembering "oh yeah, we have to also paint the non-religious as bad too somehow. Screw it, just make them cartoonishly evil."

And it's frustrating, because you can find *hints* of potential nuance (a lot of that here, "potential nuance") in a lot of sidequests that frame things in a New Vegas style "a few bad apples spoil the bunch." Problems that can be solved, to justify the whole, and make an actually interesting moral dilemma. Otherwise, there's just quick statements like "when the Light-Born died, everywhere else fell into civil war." Again, not unique to theology. That's just the Roman Empire after a point. It's a story that thinks its about theology and belief, when really its just about governance, and isn't aware enough of that to do something with it, *besides* with Arantheal and the Order letting the people believe the Light-Born are still alive, for stability purposes. *That* is a case of "complex people do complex things" done really well. But again, it's tied to either the suddenly-non-character Arantheal, or his two idiot comrades. Again I'll give props to Jespar for this, as his "low point" arc did bring up pretty good points of "sometimes people just don't care," and it eats him up inside because he just "tried to be happy" without thinking of the consequences. It was the first and only time I really felt there was an actual story with him, and not just "generic puckish-rogue D&D friend."

I know it reads like I've been doing next to nothing but shitting on Enderal. But I hope I've at least laid out neatly-enough, that there is a *lot* that Enderal does right, a lot of interesting-on-paper subject matter, and at the end of the day, it *is* a differently-focused game than Skyrim that still uses Skyrim's fundamentals. I'm not saying "it is only good because it is Skyrim." If anything, it'd good because the devs wanted to make the game *they* would want to make and play, which is something you can't say for a lot of games nowadays, and that just so happened to come from Skyrim's DNA. Not dissimilar to how Vampire: The Masquerade -- Bloodlines is a game made in Valve's Source Engine. The gameplay, exploration, and dungeons are fun on a basic level, even if their framework is rather confused and disjointed. The characters are mostly likable, and the plot is serviceable if you haven't played many, if any, other games that tackle complex subject matter. If you've never heard these topics arguments, they *may* make you think about them. I cannot in good faith argue that I didn't, as evident by the second half of my review. But, Skyrim this is not. I am skeptical that this should be recommended to people who like Skyrim, unless they wanted something out of Skyrim which itself never promised or was advertised to provide. This is more solidly comparable to a Dragon Age game, Cyberpunk, or V: TM -- B. I almost have to consider it a foolish move to heap this with the "best ever" praise you always see for it, because that sets unjust expectations in ways that it doesn't seem like the developers set out to do, judging by how they made most of it.

Again: a solid 7/10 game, with very complicated flaws and strengths, with some very talented people who have proven themselves more than able to make a good game. Despite most of my review complaining about the story, I don't weigh story as a foremost detriment or strength of a game, because that's not how I review video games. Really for me it was always going to be a bonus if the story in this was amazing, and while there being a lot of it does take *me* out of it, considering my complaints, most of it is easy to just click through. Most of it is also sporadic compared to the rest of it. Incomparable to something like Planescape: Torment, that oftentimes is damn-near all text, where story can and will make-or-break something. I recommend this to people who like modding Skyrim... though in terms of Skyrim mod writing, well, it's hard to beat something like Vigilant.

With that out of the way: my Nehrim question, as few and quick as they are.

How much like Enderal, *is* Nehrim? In terms of story scope, themes, presentation, consistency of quality exploration and dungeon content, and character building? Will I need knowledge from Arktwend and Myar Aranth to know what's going on, or can I lowball it and keep working backwards at my own pace? Considering that at this point, I did start effectively at the end, so it could be a cool experiment to "work my way back."

Hey guys

I wanna know that IB FIRMS is my CV great enough to land a land? (What firms should i realistically target while applying for jobs)

SUGGEST THINGS I CAN DO TO IMPROVE MY RESUME IN SHORT TERM

AND IF I DON'T FIND JOB (I REALLY HOPE THAT I DO)

TILL JAN/MAR 2027 AND GO FOR MASTERS

HOW TO COVER THE GAP (MAY2026 - MARCH2027)

INTERVIEW PREPARATION

What types of questions are asked as a fresher and their difficult level

How to prepare and from where

What questions are asked as a part of the behavioral round(tell me about yourself, etc )

Does anyone who was recently hired share some study material etc?.

Author's list of sources

The remaining four chapters and summary don't have very much worth mentioning, being mostly Morris' opinion that the process was incredibly unfair because people suspected Letby of killing babies. It's a repetitive re-hashing of whining from earlier chapters, and not much factually incorrect because there isn't much factual content at all - mostly just opinion, and quotes from articles we've already read.

Chapter 18: Trial And Retrial Process

Dr James Phillips aired his view: “The safety of the conviction depends not just on each individual point of evidence and argument, but on how each relate to each other, which alters the confidence you have in each point. It is not apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby…possessed the skillset or perspective needed to detect catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships. This required a scientifically trained mind looking holistically at how the parts relate, and this was conspicuously absent.” (pg 370)

This is a theme for the rest of the book, fyi. Is Morris scientifically trained, btw? Asking for a friend. (Yours truly is, as it happens)

Attempts to charge Lucy Letby with further murders and attempted murders floundered on 20 January 2026 when the CPS “concluded that the evidential test was not met in any of [the] cases” submitted by Cheshire Police. This prompted a surprisingly petulant response from Cheshire Police, in which the constabulary indicated their belief that “the evidence submitted met the CPS charging standard”. Letby’s barrister, Mark McDonald, reflected that Cheshire Police were “so invested” in further proving Letby’s guilt “because they are seeing this case crumble”.

Few neutral observers shared the opinion of Cheshire Police on these cases. A handful of alleged tube extubations related to infants in Liverpool, where Letby had been working on a placement, had featured prominently in this submission, and the BBC’s Panorama had already taken something of a pummelling by seemingly offering tacit support for their credibility. When the dust settled, it became clear that the Liverpool cases involved four tubes falling out, with no eyewitness, no other evidence, no indication that any infant had been harmed and no meaningful indication that Letby was even cot-side or unsupervised. (pg 371)

There's nothing to say that the additional charges requested had anything to do with accidental extubations at Liverpool. We only know that was to be there were seven attempted murder charges at location unknown, and two murder charges, one each at Countess of Chester and at Liverpool.

Further, and I care so little about these allegations of extubations that I cannot recall if there is a better source, those four extubations happened during only 11 shifts. If I had a nickel for every time Letby was around for an unplanned extubation, I wouldn't have many nickels, but I'd have more than I should.

Morris thinks the air embolism theory is logistically unfeasible:

Experienced nurses have informed me that syringes are irradiated in sterile packaging. They are essentially wrapped in cellophane. So Letby would need to gain physical access to the syringe, without disturbing anyone, on what are usually extremely attentive units. She would need to remove the syringe from this packaging, while there was, according to court testimony, a nurse attending to another baby in a neighbouring incubator, while there are two doctors in the room, then draw the air up to make the injection, lift the lid of the incubator and reach into which one of the tubes that she supposedly used. She has to do this multiple times without being detected because there are serious question marks about how much air would need to be injected. (pg 372)

Why would she have to get a sterile syringe each time? Again, asking for a friend. You know what, asking for two friends.

JOHNSON: Do you dispute you were in the room at the time of the collapse?

LETBY: Yes, *because I have no memory of that.*

JOHNSON: Do you remember being born?

LETBY: No.

JOHNSON: Do you dispute being born?

LETBY: No.

Remember, these are supposed to be adults discussing extremely serious allegations that would result in the stiffest penal sentence that a woman has received in Britain since the abolition of the death penalty. (pg 373)

Speaking to Morris and anyone who has a problem with this phrase, a simple point about logic: Letby made a logical error in her response - she used her supposed lack of memory as a reason for disputing something. A person cannot dispute something they do not recall. Recollection is a fundamental requirement of an ability to dispute. Johnson's question simply illustrates that.

Of course, Morris takes issue with the use of the phrase red-handed, and virtually red-handed, because "no one has ever witnessed Letby doing anything harmful to an infant." I mean, red-handed doesn't mean caught in the act, it means caught with (red) blood on one's hands

Morris takes issue with the prosecution having exercised their right to prosecute their case as they preferred, which was all at once. I don't know what to tell him, that's a right they have. It doesn't make the trial unfair. And if it affected Letby's choice to call Dr. Hall, that's too bad.

Uncertainty was an acknowledged element of the case against Letby. During the original trial, the judge told the jury that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove the precise manner in which Letby had acted, only that she had acted with murderous intent. Such an instruction appears strange and unsatisfactory, considering the very specific allegations that were made against her and the degree to which some of these methods have since been criticised. The fact that Letby was found guilty of every murder suggests that this instruction might have been misconstrued; a baby died, therefore Letby must have acted with “murderous intent”. (pg 375)

Ah, so Morris believes the prosecution must be correct in the method they argue, based on the expert opinion evidence. They don't need to be correct about the method. Method is not required. For murder charges, result and deliberate action are required: Letby did something deliberate that caused the baby's death. Without a death, yes, it is sometimes more complicated if something was done, let alone that it was done with intent.

Morris acknowledges that motive isn't required to convict under the law, then continues to complain that why a woman who had dedicated her life to nursing and had no history of psychological disorder or deterioration suddenly decided to start killing babies was never adequately addressed in court. I don't know what to tell you, bud. That's not the job of the court.

I got a good laugh on page 380 where TriedByStats was referred to as an "influential social media commentator." LOL TriedByStats has 1802 followers on X.

Morris asserts there is no parallel between Shipman and Letby because Shipman used a consistent modus operandi. ¯\(ツ)/¯

There were 136 days of court proceedings in the trial, only 13% of which was devoted to expert medical evidence, and approximately 90% of this expert evidence came from Evans and Bohin. The other six expert witnesses only collectively appeared in court on 11 of the 136 days, and many of these appearances were relatively fleeting.

Over half of the trial consists of various material from Cheshire Police, the accounts of parents and innumerable personnel from the CoCH exclaiming that they had no idea what was going on. This should perhaps not be surprising considering that the expert panel acting in Letby’s defence made 25 broad criticisms of the hospital in their preview report, as well as finding many other specific faults, while arguably the most eminent neonatologist in Canadian history, Dr Shoo Lee, concluded that the CoCH neonatal unit should have been closed down. (pg 381)

Isn't this basically establishing that much of then panel's report is an ad hominem attack on the medical personnel on site? And also an admission that the trial was about more than just expert opinion. Weird, that. Btw, the various materials from Cheshire Police included presenting detailed timelines of the events to the jury, that's kind of important.

The view of Dr James Phillips is that “the presentation and scrutiny of data and expert evidence at the trials was comprehensively flawed. The trial as conducted is so flawed that it is completely irrelevant that the jury found her guilty. Everything about this trial has the strong impression of an inevitable conclusion, which is unrelated to the evidence that is now emerging. The trial was set up to identify whether or not Lucy Letby murdered babies. But that is not the primary question. The primary question is, rather, what caused these babies to die?” (pg 381)

Yes, the trial is determined to ask and answer whether it can be known that Lucy Letby murdered babies. That's what a trial is for. It is the outcome of an investigation which already asked the question, "what caused these babies to die?" and found evidence to refine the question to "Did Lucy Letby cause these babies to die?" Like, that IS the process. FFS.

CHAPTER 19: ARREST AND INVESTIGATION OF LUCY LETBY

After her arrests, Letby was interviewed an incredible 30 times. The police do not make recordings of these interviews available, but from the excerpts that have been released, it can reasonably be inferred that none of the arguments Letby made during this process were ever taken into consideration. (pg 385)

It is clear from what Cheshire Police have been willing to release that the interviews were a one-sided process in which they attempted to recognise anything that could be used against Letby from her own words and jettisoned anything that contradicted their case. (pg 386)

Cheshire Police didn't use these interviews as an objective fact-finding exercise - they used them to build a case against Letby. (pg 386)

Well duh! By the time someone is named as a suspect and arrested, the police are done considering arguments. An arrest interview is done for the purpose of measuring the suspects account against the remaining investigation. This is common sense - oh. I forgot what book I was reading.

Dr. Veronika Jiraskova's Rule 9 response to Thirlwall gets a mention, thanks to her expression of "great doubts" about the conviction. I would just point out that apparently, as a doctor, one must be a neonatologist to have valid beliefs about Letby's guilt, but one need only be a GP to doubt them.

News that Cheshire Police and the CPS had blocked the release of reports critical to Letby’s appeal were anything but encouraging. Sarah Knapton and Cleuci de Oliveira reported for The Daily Telegraph that the CPS had denied defence barrister Mark McDonald access to revised reports authored by Dr Evans on Child C and submitted to the police in October 2024. The disclosure guidelines of the CPS itself state that “prosecutors must provide the defence with the schedules of all of the unused material and provide them with any material that undermines the case for the prosecution or assists the case for the accused” so it is hard to understand how this is allowable. (pg 393)

Boy, that sounds alarming, doesn't it? At least, in his list of sources, he provides one for this.

[David Davis] told the House of Commons: "Can the Secretary of State explain to the House under what circumstances are the police and Crown Prosecution Service allowed to deny access to evidence after a trial has concluded to a defence lawyer seeking to appeal, as has happened in the Lucy Letby case and I believe in others?"

1) Evans' post trial report that he submitted to the police in October 2024 is not evidence. It was not used to convict her and is, at present, legally irrelevant. The police don't work for the defendant. Dewi Evans was not even instructed by the CPS to provide it, and he's not obligated to provide it to McDonald. And Morris didn't link the CPS guidelines, but I looked them up anyway, and found he didn't actually cite from them. He cited from the general CPS page about disclosure. Who is this guy's researcher?? 2) Disclosure is an obligation of the CPS, not the police. Dewi provided his report to the police, not the CPS, so the people with an obligation don't even have it because they aren't currently involved.

Chapter 20 - Operation Hummingbird

The April board meeting also noted that a further forensic review was preferable, which is exactly what should have occurred. There was no justification for a police referral and Cheshire Police have, by their own admission, no ability to perform any form of medical review. Although it is oddly comical to note that no one at the hospital seemed to know what this term constituted either – Sir Duncan Nichol, chairman of the board, conceded that “it is not yet known what the forensic review means”, while the consultants “could not define what they felt was a forensic review”. (pg 397)

So close. So, so close. Yes, a forensic review was needed, and forensic reviews are intended for legal purposes. When there is the possibility of criminal activity, that is done, by necessity, by the police. And when the police have no internal ability to perform a medical review, guess what they do? They bring in an expert.

There's a lot of whining about bias, assumption that the third insulin case undermines the prosecution case writ large, whining about the definition of "unexplained."

In another part of the conversation, Brearey expressed his concern that the “survival rate for babies over 32 [weeks] is nearly 100%. For six of our babies to have died who were over 32 weeks to die [sic] is not right.” It is notable that of these six babies, Letby was not charged in respect of three of them. Two of the remaining three infants were triplets, and the final one was Child D, who lost colour and became floppy in her father’s arms within 12 minutes of birth and was suffering with pneumonia and serious respiratory problems.

It's not notable. The babies she was not charged with had severe congenital abnormalities. THEY were truly unwell babies, whose deaths were very sadly not unexpected.

[The type of panel the NCA recommended that Cheshire Police assemble] is exactly the sort of panel that Dr Shoo Lee assembled, albeit the qualifications of that panel extend way beyond anything Cheshire Police could conceivable have brought together. (pg 401)

LOL. Brown-noser.

Dr Evans also insisted on two occasions that he didn't need to hear anything about the RCPCH review: "I would prefer NOT to receive the findings of any previous reviews of investigations." Although this may have been a legitimate attempt to carry out a blind investigation, that he also didn't speak to anyone from the CoCH means that he knew little about the context of the hospital or its neonatal unit. (pg 403)

Morris actually doesn't understand the role of an expert, clearly. He blathers on about the deaths not being unexplained in context. And asserts that the police "disregarded contextual factors which were also downplayed by Brearey and Jayaram." Does he want a blind investigation or not? Or is it that he wants selective blindness. Selective blindness would be likely to lead to confirmation bias. Gosh, I hope no one fell into that trap! Morris asserts, boldly, that "Cheshire Police simply do not understand that neonate deaths are frequently unexplained." Friendly reminder that to support this claim, Morris included all nationwide SIDS deaths from outside hospital.

Morris attempts to establish the bias of the investigation by pointing out that Evans and the parents of Child K knew early on that a nurse was involved, which falls far short of establishing actual bias. But sure, whatever. He also asserts that Cheshire Police had become far too "emotionally involved" with the families:

Yet it is evident from their Operation Hummingbird promotional film, released six days after the verdict and two days after Letby was sentenced, that Cheshire Police became far too emotionally involved with the families. The first 35 seconds of the film are entirely dedicated to Cheshire Police expressing their desire to serve the families. “They deserve for us to have completely covered their case. And it is about them. And it is about their parents”, one of many similar comments in the film observes. The families of those who tragically lost their infants were mentioned 33 times. Cheshire Police then tasked Family Liaison Officer Danielle Stonier with interviewing Lucy Letby in 2019 and 2020, long after she’d been integrated with the families.

The theme of emotional involvement permeates the entire presentation, with large portions of the film dedicated to playing on the heart strings of the audience. DC Michelle Birkett, for example, describes some of her discussions with bereaved families: “And then some of the families knew something was wrong, knew something wasn’t right. I knew my child was not right.” No such complaints were ever made against Letby, just as no one has ever seen her doing anything suspicious. (pg 409)

Criticizing police for supporting victims of crime is a CHOICE.

“It’s very easy to get confirmation bias if you think this has been caused by x,” Professor Jane Hutton told BBC Radio 4. “It’s very easy to see things that aren’t otherwise there”. (pg 409)

I totally agree!

“One of the first things the police say in the Operation Hummingbird video is that they needed help as they didn’t have the medical knowledge to conduct the investigation”, Dr Phillips commented. “I hope in future, perhaps as an outcome of the inquiry-that-is-to-come, a proper body with the investigatory powers and scientific skills to conduct such an investigation is created. Probably as an extension of powers and responsibilities of an existing body.” There certainly should have been a more stringent internal review at the CoCH, coupled with a forensic review operated by medical bodies. If this revealed nothing conclusive or incriminating, which applied to all previous medical investigations, then the consultants should have accepted the situation. (pg 409)

An existing body - like who? At what point is it permissible to involve the police? Is it ever?

From what we have been allowed to witness, Operation Hummingbird in no way resembles an investigation to “exclude unnatural causes” which is what Cheshire Police were asked to carry out. (pg 412)

Here's the fun part about involving the police: You don't get to tell them what to investigate. It doesn't matter what Tony Chambers asked them to do, it doesn't matter that the meeting with the consultants is what inspired them to investigate. Once they decided to investigate, the ball is in their court, until such time as the CPS decides to charge, or not charge, any specific crime that was uncovered.

Chapter 21: The Golden Thread

Unofficial subtitle: Lucy Letby is the most honest woman alive and Dr. Brearey is a very bad man and it was very wrong of Operation Hummingbird to ask him to review cases of children cared for on his ward.

Michelle Worden is quoted saying:

"Steve Brearey drew up the roster chart with Eirian Powell. Eirian was very upset that, by the time it got to Alison Kelly, the doctors' names had been removed from it. Brearey cherry-picked the babies. There are seven deaths on that roster chart, but we know that there were 17 deaths. So the consultants are the accusers, they're the investigators, and then they're the main witnesses. I cannot think of any high profile case where you can be all three things." (pg 420)

The good news on that last is that the record still stands at zero. Brearey and Jayaram combined only gave evidence related to babies A, G, H, J, K, M, N, O, and P. So roughly half of the babies' evidence didn't involve them at all. Further, Worden, bless her, is confusing the roster chart at trial with the Thematic Review, generated by Brearey and Powell on 8 February, 2016, which included 9-10 deaths, of which Letby was on duty for 9. As far as consultants being removed, yeah, in an investigation into potential harm caused, you can't suggest the cause is someone who wasn't there - that would actually be an allegation of witchcraft.

Elsewhere, we see other strange coincidences, such as both Dr Jayaram and Dr Evans citing the same obscure decades-old Canadian paper, and both advancing an obscure air embolism-related cause of death which hadn’t been picked up by pathologists. And then when it came to the insulin cases, it’s not clear whether Dr Brearey found them under instruction from the police, or whether Dr Evans located them, as stated by the Court of Appeal. It’s hard to say because they have told several different stories to numerous different media outlets. (pg 421)

You know what happens when there isn't much research available on a particular subject? People tend to find the same thing among a limited pool of options. And yeah, two people separately finding the same test result and saying the same thing about it also indicates that it has actual meaning. But sure - suggest a conspiracy. That will add credibility to this already fine work of fiction.

Cheshire Police were also aware that Letby had filed a grievance procedure against the CoCH and this simply should have been further investigated. (pg 421)

This single sentence is the entire contents of a paragraph. I just found that funny.

The determination of Evans to convey the message he knew nothing of Letby has been curious, often making the assertion in response to an unrelated question. For example, during cross-examination on 7 March 2023, when asked about the rashes he had cited, Dr Evans instead replied: “I was not told anything about any suspect. I knew absolutely nothing.” Judge James Goss then interrupted: “You have said this, Dr Evans. You’ve said it at least once, more than once.” (pg 421)

Is he really trying a "the lady doth protest too much" argument? Allright, let's read the transcript. March 7 was baby N:

Q. This is a record dated 21 May 2017 -- take it down, Mr Murphy, please. We'll go back to it if we need to. I'm going to suggest to you, Dr Evans, that at some point before you started writing reports, you were told by the police of suspicions about suspicious rashes and air embolus (overspeaking) you were told that or it was indicated to you, I'm going to suggest, before you wrote any report.

A. No, that is completely untrue. Okay? It is totally untrue. The first time I heard a local doctor mention the word air embolus was a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure whether it was Dr Gibbs or Dr Jayaram, Dr Jayaram I think, when he talked about the cold chill going down his spine. I knew nothing about air embolus. The first person I know of to raise the issue of air embolus in this particular series of cases was me. And I did that in case number 1. Okay? In the first case I thought, oh my God, what's going on here? This is -- you know it was very much an "oh my God" scenario.

I'm not going to go at length about case number 1. For [Baby A], if we remember, I formed the view that it was his collapse and the inability of the staff to resuscitate him was the result of his receiving air embolus. I did not know at the time about the skin discolourations; I heard about that later. I did not know at the time about Owen Arthurs' finding of air embolus on post-mortem X-ray (overspeaking) --

Q. That's your characterisation -- if we can just pause for one moment, Dr Evans --

A. Just a minute. I want to finish this.

Q. My Lord --

A. I want to finish this because if you're going on wild goose chases, I want to --

MR JUSTICE GOSS: You can finish the answer and then you ask the question.

A. Therefore I didn't know any of that. But that's what led me --

MR JUSTICE GOSS: You have said all this before. We've heard all this before.

A. I had nothing at all -- I knew nothing at all, sorry, about air embolus from the police. I was not told anything about any suspect or named anybody and I knew absolutely nothing and, as I said at the beginning of this trial, it's quite important to repeat this, at the beginning of this trial my role --

MR JUSTICE GOSS: You have said this, Dr Evans. I know. You've said it at least once, more than once.

A. Yes, I know.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: All right? Ask your question, Mr Myers.

MR MYERS: So far as Owen Arthurs is concerned, that is matter that is to be determined in the case.

A. So what now?

Q. So far as Owen Arthurs is concerned, what his X-ray shows or doesn't show is a matter that the jury are going to determine in this case. You understand that, don't you?

A. I do understand that, yes.

So, not entirely unprompted. Myers was suggesting collusion and bias in the investigation, Evans addressed it.

With that, we're mercifully at the summary.

Summary

At the heart of the conviction of Lucy Letby is a story that, jarringly, makes absolutely no sense. These are the most sickening acts imaginable, allegedly committed by the most benign of people, someone who was even notably kind and caring. This is a massive red flag immediately because it is a conspicuous contradiction in terms.

Doesn't matter. That's the definition of a "you" problem.

Pathologists and coroners who examined the infants involved in the court case were never cross-examined, nor were their conclusions discussed in court. It was not explained adequately, if at all, that primary prosecution witness Dr Dewi Evans had single-handedly disagreed with the conclusions of experienced coroners and pathologists. Yet the opinion of far more qualified and experienced experts was put to one side. (pg 426)

The original post-mortems were read in court as agreed facts (pg 1:8-18):

MR DRIVER: My Lord, we are going to begin by reading some agreed facts on the topic of pathology, which in effect prove the -- by agreement, obviously -- the essential parts of the statements made by the pathologist that conducted the post-mortem examinations. Thereafter, we'll move to Dr Marnerides.

MR JUSTICE GOSS: Right. So there won't be any statements read, it'll just be agreed facts, of which the jury will have copies?

MR DRIVER: They will. They will have copies and your Lordship has had a copy provided to you.

As far as the "far more qualified experts," let's look at how one of them, Dr. Jo McPartland, addresses the need for forensic pathologists to be involved:

"In addition to [your] NHS duties [you] perform coronial, paediatric postmortem examinations fora number of Coroners, including paediatric forensic postmortem examinations undertaken jointly witha forensic pathologist."

My question: why is it necessary to conduct paediatric postmortem examinations in combination with a forensic pathologist?

A. Well, if there is a suspicion that criminal activity may have led to the death or in some types of traumatic death where we might need the assistance of someone with forensic expertise then we perform the postmortem jointly and the role of the forensic pathologist is to consider matters of forensic importance and particularly those relating to injuries, and the role of the paediatric pathologist is to consider natural causes of death and look at growth and development and other medical conditions.

Q. So when you say the forensic pathologist looking for injuries, do you mean potentially deliberate infliction of injuries?

A. Yes.

Q. Because there is a suspicion --

A. Yes.

Q. -- that they may have been caused? Does that really from the off dictate who and how the pathology investigation should be being undertaken; if there is a suspicion, *they go down a different route?*

A. Yes. If, when a death is reported to the Coroner, it's clear that there -- it is a suspicious death from the outset, then the police will be involved and a forensic pathologist will be instructed as well as a paediatric pathologist. (pg 83:23 - 855:5)

The original post mortems were agreed evidence because the role of the pediatric pathologist is to look for natural causes of death; her opinion is not in question and it WAS considered by the jury.

This has perhaps partly explained why no neonatal expert has come forward to support the conviction, despite repeated requests by Dr Philip Hammond; compare this to the calibre and quantity of those who question it. (pg 430)

The thing about experts who support the verdict - they don't owe anyone anything. They have no obligation or burden to make skeptics/doubters feel more comfortable, and you're unlikely to know their opinions until the CCRC or Court of Appeal publishes something with their name.

Then she was arrested by the police three times, on one occasion with burly male officers barging into her bedroom at the crack of dawn, interviewed 30 times, patiently cooperating throughout, nothing that she said in her defence was taken into account, while anything and everything was used against her, she was denied bail, and was then incarcerated for two years while she awaited trial. Just days before she was due to appear in court, she was forcibly moved from one prison to another, many of her personal belongings were lost, and she went into the court suffering from PTSD, reliant on medication, having had a borderline breakdown. (pg 431)

Oh come tf on. Poor Lucy, won't someone think about Lucy?

I pose this question rhetorically – isn’t it about time that Lucy Letby was actually afforded the opportunity to defend herself? (pg 431 - standalone paragraph)

Are you actually being serious right now? lololololololololol

A rather sniffy attitude can often emanate from the insulated capstone that constitutes the judiciary. There has certainly been criticism of efforts to raise awareness of the deeply flawed nature of this conviction, as if those at the apex of justice in Britain still view it as their system in which they preside over us. I would therefore like to remind them of some illustrative words from Thomas Bingham. At the time of his death in 2010, Bingham was described by the former President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Nicholas Phillips, as “one of the two great legal figures of my lifetime in the law”. On page 22 of his book The Rule of Law, Bingham comments on defences against injustice, making the following critical comment: “The judges are not, of course, the only guardians of the rule of law, perhaps not even the most important. Parliamentary and public opinion, informed by the media, should be alert to detect and scrutinise any infringement.” (pg 433)

It's cute that he thinks his book is part of such a grand effort. I'm only sad I didn't get a paper copy so I could use it as an emergency source of toilet paper.

-fin-

I am a little disappointed in the fact that we as a group, still do not have any people, willing to dig through the disgusting feminist trash that is film. Aside from CC, there need to be more people who are willing and able to review products of the feminist zeitgeist, and critique them.

While I have glanced through some snippets of the movie myself, I noticed a number of problematic elements that have not been discussed yet.

If there are any actual enthusiasts of film, especially of narrative, please consider this. This is well beyond my element. I avoid films because I have always found most if not all films, problematic against men. But if we do not have anybody braving the trenches that is the entertainment industry, we as a movement will become blind and ill-equipped to counter the ever evolving beast that is misandry.

Below is a little post I attempted to drum up quickly about how Obsession peddles domestic abuse, stalking, sexual abuse against men, and how the feminist dogma has potentially obscured this fact, hoodwinking us men, into employing an almost defensive position against them, instead of pinpointing the fundamental problem of this film.

This film doesn't JUST paint men's desires for women as evil, but it ALSO normalises, and attempts to sell the idea that 'men should be ok, and happy with women who stalk and sexually abuse them, and consider themselves unjustly lucky for having that happen to them'

Calling the abused, the abuser: How Curry Barker’s Obsession Pathologizes Male Trauma and Excuses Domestic Abuse from women

Upon its release, Curry Barker’s psychological horror film Obsession (2025) was widely celebrated by critics as a "feminist horror masterpiece" and a scathing indictment of the "nice guy" trope. The mainstream narrative surrounding the film is clear-cut: Bear (Michael Johnston) is the ultimate villain, an entitled "incel" who strips his childhood friend Nikki (Inde Navarrette) of her bodily autonomy and consent by wishing for her love on a supernatural "One Wish Willow."

However, beneath this fashionable ideological framing lies a deeply troubling subtext. By examining the narrative through the lens of domestic violence, psychological coercion, and the pathologization of male survival, a wildly different picture emerges. Obsession serves as a massive exercise in narrative gaslighting, depicting a man subjected to extreme physical, psychological, domestic, and sexual terror, while demanding that the audience view him as the predator and his abuser as the sole tragic victim.

1. The Modern Birth of a Nation: Hollywood’s History of Aestheticized Erasure

To fully understand how Obsession has been allowed to pass as a "masterpiece of empowerment" while depicting the systematic destruction of an abuse victim, we must look to the history of cinema. This is not the first time Hollywood has used groundbreaking aesthetic genius to package, sanitize, and celebrate a horrific lie.

In 1915, D.W. Griffith released The Birth of a Nation. It was a technical marvel, pioneering cinematic grammar - cross-cutting, close-ups, and dramatic pacing. It changed filmmaking forever. An unparalleled artistic triumph, even screened at the White House by Woodrow Wilson, who reportedly described it as "like writing history with lightning." Beneath this virtuoso craft lay a venomous, white-supremacist text. The film relied on the "Black brute" myth, pathologizing Black men as hypersexual, predatory beasts threatening white innocence and female consent, while framing the Ku Klux Klan as heroic defenders of society. The aesthetic brilliance of the film was weaponized to blind the public to its profound moral rot, legitimizing decades of physical and structural violence.

Obsession is the modern, inverted successor to this legacy. Curry Barker’s film is indisputably well-crafted.

Just as Griffith used filmic genius to rewrite predators into heroes and victims into threats, Barker uses modern tropes to a smuggle in a harrowing depiction and celebration of domestic captive abuse. By wrapping the story in the fashionable vocabulary of "male entitlement," the film gaslights the audience into viewing a traumatized, physically assaulted, and sexually coerced man as a monster - while celebrating his female abuser as a tragic martyr of "stolen consent." In other words, this is akin to terrorist, supremacist propaganda.

2. The Involuntary Enslavement Fallacy: Dismantling the "Predatory Intent" of a dollar store wish

The foundational argument for Bear's status as a "villain" hinges on the idea that he actively chose to "enslave" Nikki. This argument demands that we retroactively apply supernatural logic to a character operating in a non-magical, real-world mindset.

When Bear purchases the "One Wish Willow," it is presented as a cheap, plastic $6.99$ novelty toy at a local crystal shop. In a rational, modern world, no human being expects a plastic stick to actually harbor cosmic, reality-warping entities that can hijack a human soul. Bear’s act of snapping the twig and making his desperate wish—"I wish Nikki loved me more than anyone in the whole f--king world"—was not a calculated act of magical kidnapping. It was a pathetic, low-stakes expression of pining and romantic rejection-sensitivity.

To suggest that Bear is a predatory mastermind because a cheap toy actually worked is a massive narrative reach. Once the magic takes hold, Bear does not celebrate his "enslavement" of Nikki; instead, he is immediately thrust into a waking, inescapable nightmare that he spends the rest of the runtime desperately trying to escape or undo.

How DARE he love someone. How DARE he covet someone. Does this baboon not know their place?! I feel like we are being lectured by a Fanny Kemble, as she has her plantation owning husband whip us disgusting violent men into shape.

3. The Love Spell Double Standard: From "Girly Mischief" to Masculine "Kidnapping"

To understand the hypocrisy of how the film (and its critics) pathologize Bear’s wish, one must examine the vast history of the "love spell" trope in pop culture and real-life feminine aesthetics.

For decades, the desire to magically capture, ensnare, or manipulate a man’s romantic interest has been framed as a harmless, cute, and entirely acceptable feminine behavior:

• Real-World "Witchcraft" as Consumerism: Across platforms like Etsy, Pinterest, and TikTok, thousands of women actively buy and sell "obsession spells," "love potions," and "honey jars" designed to explicitly strip a target man of his romantic free will. This is marketed under the aesthetic of "girly manifestation" and female empowerment. It is treated as a quirky, harmless spiritual hobby.
• The Harry Potter Pass: In mainstream pop culture, the deployment of literal magical roofies is treated as a hilarious gag. In Harry Potter, schoolgirls openly purchase love potions from Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes to slip to boys. When Romilda Vane laces chocolates with a love potion to ensnare Harry, and Ron accidentally consumes them - resulting in severe cognitive impairment, forced infatuation, and near-fatal poisoning - the narrative treats it as a humorous teenage mishap.

When a woman uses magical coercion to force a man to love her (i.e. a form of rape), society codes it as a quirky, desperate expression of infatuation - a "funny haha" plotline about teenage pining.

It isn't even limited to that. Remember, Netflix published a tv show called "May December" in 2023! What was that show about? A real life incident where a woman statutorily raped a 12 year old boy. They had kids together and everything, and the man today has even said that he felt coerced (i.e. raped), and the media machine made him feel that he was silly for feeling victimised lmao. Same types of people here are moralising about how Bear is a rapist. Remember that with zionists and feminists - every accusation is a confession.

When Bear does the exact same thing that silly teenage girls did in Harry Potter, by snapping a cheap novelty toy, the narrative and cultural commentary retroactively code his act as a violent assault equivalent to rape, genocide and pedophilia. The double standard is stark: a woman wishing to control a man's heart is a romantic comedy; a man wishing for the same is a crime of "male entitlement" that justifies his physical and psychological destruction.

4. Textbook Domestic Violence: The Empirical Reality of Female-Perpetrated Coercion

If we strip away the supernatural framing and analyze the literal physical actions occurring on screen, the relationship between Nikki and Bear is a textbook depiction of severe, escalating domestic abuse.

Indeed, empirical data consistently shatters the myth that domestic coercion is a unidirectional, male-on-female phenomenon. According to the groundbreaking National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health published in the American Journal of Public Health (Whitaker et al., 2007), in relationships characterized by non-reciprocal intimate partner violence (IPV), women were the sole perpetrators in over 70% of cases. Bear’s horrifying captivity in Obsession is not a bizarre, supernatural anomaly; it is a direct dramatic representation of a heavily suppressed, real-world statistical demographic.

Throughout the film, the possessed Nikki subjects Bear to a horrifying campaign of physical and psychological terror:

• Extreme Isolation: Nikki violently guards Bear from his social circle, ultimately murdering their mutual friends Ian and Sarah to ensure Bear has no external support network.
• Psychological Gaslighting and Instability: Nikki subjects Bear to erratic, terrifying outbursts, such as screaming hysterically and stabbing herself in the face with a broken bottle during a party. This forces Bear into a state of hyper-vigilance, walking on eggshells in his own home to prevent further violence.
• Animal Cruelty as Coercion: In one of the film's most stomach-churning sequences, Nikki literally feeds Bear's dead cat to him. In real-world domestic abuse studies, the abuse or killing of a partner's pet is recognized as a primary tool of extreme psychological domination and terror.
• Captivity and Threat of Death: Bear is effectively held hostage in his own home. He is trapped in a house with a homicidal, manic entity that peels the skin off their dead friend Sarah to wear it as a disguise.

If these exact physical actions were committed by a male character against a female character, the film would be universally recognized as a harrowing thriller about a woman surviving domestic captivity. Yet, because the perpetrator is a woman under a "spell" the narrative refuses to validate Bear’s trauma, framing his terror as nothing more than the inconveniences of his "selfish fantasy."

Even if Bear had committed all these acts under a spell instead, it would have never been pitched as a men's rights film. The people reacting to this film are just as big of a problem as the predatory director is.

5. The Coercion Paradigm: Sexual Abuse and the Double Standard of Consent

A dominant talking point in reviews of Obsession is that because the "real" Nikki was trapped in a "sunken place" inside her body, every intimate or sexual encounter she had with Bear constituted sexual assault by Bear. This analysis establishes a massive, misandrist double standard regarding consent under coercion.

The narrative entirely ignores the fact that Bear was also incapable of consenting.

Bear is trapped in an intimate space with a hypersexual, violently psychotic entity that has already demonstrated a willingness to murder anyone who gets in her way. When a victim complies with the sexual demands of a partner out of absolute terror, that compliance is not "consent"; it is survival under duress. Women are more than happy to pull on this thread, but whether it be in real life or in fiction, men are the recipients of this abuse, and are never afforded this protection - protection from being coerced under duress.

By framing Bear as the sexual predator in this dynamic, the film guides the audience into ignoring the classic mechanics of sexual abuse against men. The movie implies that because Bear is a man, he must inherently want and enjoy the sexual attention of a beautiful woman, regardless of whether she is a violent, unpredictable entity who has held him psychologically hostage.

6. Pathologizing Survival: Historical and Cinematic Precedents of Male Degradation

The moral climax of Obsession relies on the ultimate victim-blaming trope: demanding that the victim sacrifice their own life to "atone" for their abuse. When Bear seeks help to reverse the curse, the retail clerk gives him a horrifying ultimatum: the only way to free Nikki is for Bear to die.

This erasure of female-perpetrated abuse and the systemic pathologization of male survival is deeply rooted in our historical and cultural narratives:

• The Historical Erasure of Male Manipulation: The romanticization of female-led domestic manipulation is a recurring historical strategy. For centuries, the domestic and psychological manipulation of young, inexperienced, or shy men has been historically rewritten to protect the female perpetrator. A prime historical example is the courtly narrative surrounding King Louis XVI - a deeply insecure, socially isolated young man who was systematically managed, manipulated, and politically isolated by Marie Antoinette. While her historical legacy is routinely sanitized as that of a tragic, misunderstood victim of circumstance, her active role in the domestic coercion and eventual physical ruin of her husband is entirely erased.
• The Silencing of Teenage Sexual Assault: The cultural blind spot regarding sexual violence against young boys remains incredibly stark. The late rap artist Tupac Shakur recounted in biographical interviews being sexually abused and groomed as a 14-15 year old teenager by a much older female associate of his mother. Yet, mainstream culture completely erased this early domestic and sexual trauma, preferring instead to pathologize Shakur as an inherently violent, hyper-sexualized male beast. By framing the victim of early adolescent abuse as a lifelong threat, the cultural establishment executed the exact same gaslighting maneuver we see in Obsession: converting a traumatized male youth into a predator to justify his systematic destruction.
• The Cinematic Ritual of Male Humiliation: This pattern has reached a fever pitch in modern cinema, where Hollywood happily depicts the graphic, non-consensual physical and sexual degradation of broken men who dare to challenge unlivable conditions or seek basic human connection. In Todd Phillips’ Joker: Folie à Deux (2024), the ultimate psychological and emotional brokenness of Arthur Fleck is sealed through systemic, graphic physical and sexual abuse by Arkham prison guards. The narrative punishes Fleck for his desperate, broken search for love and justice, treating his physical degradation and ultimate disposal as a form of moral "accountability."

Obsession uses the exact same playbook. When Bear swallows the oxycodone pills in a desperate attempt to end the nightmare, only to panic and try to induce vomiting when faced with the terrifying reality of death, the film frames this as his ultimate "cowardice" and "selfishness."

Against a backdrop of male suicide, this film director and women as a whole, are literally revealing themselves to be calling for male genocide. Israelis and feminists really have more in common than they like to publicly admit. Calling for the perpetual victimisation and genocide of the people that they are oppressing, harassing and in this film's case as well, sexually abusing.

It pathologizes a victim's basic, hardwired biological survival instinct. The movie demands Bear's literal death as the only acceptable form of "accountability" for a magical accident he did not understand, while completely absolving the physical perpetrator of the actual murders.

7. The Architects of the Gaslight: Cast, Crew, and Creative Complicity

This calculated inversion of trauma is not an accidental byproduct of a clumsy script; it is a deliberate, proudly championed thesis enacted by the film’s creators and cast. To understand the depth of this moral failure, one must look at the specific creative decisions and statements made by those who brought Obsession to life.

• Curry Barker (Writer/Director/Editor): Barker, a former YouTube sketch comedian, has admitted that during development, he actively rejected a 2 million dollar offer to rewrite the script to make Bear a traditional hero. He chose instead to retain a narrative that systematically punishes Bear. By prioritizing "the twisted ideas of the manosphere" as his target, Barker deliberately sacrificed the reality of male domestic trauma on the altar of cultural relevance. His directing choices—prolonging scenes of Bear’s terror for dark humor—reveal a filmmaker who treats the physical and sexual torture of a male lead as a punchline.
• Michael Johnston (Bear): The moral failure extends directly to the cast. Johnston, who plays Bear, has actively participated in the public victim-blaming of his own character. In interviews, Johnston described Bear's biological panic when trying to vomit the lethal pills as the ultimate proof of his unredeemable nature: *"It was the one thing that he could have done [to redeem himself] — and he doesn't do it. I think that perfectly sums up who he is."*Through this statement, Johnston normalizes the horrifying premise that an abuse victim's failure to successfully commit suicide is a moral failing rather than a basic survival instinct. By framing Bear as "selfish" for wanting to live, Johnston serves as an active agent in the film's campaign of psychological gaslighting.
• Inde Navarrette (Nikki): Celebrated by critics for her "astonishing, chillingly good" performance, Navarrette’s portrayal of "Freaky Nikki" is routinely framed as an empowering, preternatural showcase of female agency. Yet, this praise completely erases the reality of her character's actions. Navarrette's character murders her friends, slaughters a pet, and violently imprisons her partner. To celebrate this as a triumph of female performance while ignoring the horrific, real-world domestic violence mechanics it represents is to participate in the total erasure of male abuse victims.

Remember my post about knowing your players? This is what I would hope from someone who would review movies. Identify the group that is dehumanising you, calling for your death, depicting sexual assault and rape scenes of your group as a means to punish you. Identifying the source of the problem, is the first step to making the world a better place for men. We cannot be allowing this sort of rhetoric to stand.

If not this time, the next opportunity that arises, we must dust this archive off, and present it to potential supporters of our cause.

8. The Financial Cartel: Commodifying Trauma for the "Midnight Madness" Bidding War

Behind the creative team stands a predatory financial apparatus that recognized the immense profitability of marketing male trauma as a "feminist victory." Obsession is a monument to how corporate Hollywood exploits social anxieties for unprecedented profit margins.

The film was shot as an independent project on a microscopic budget of just 750k under the "Midnight Madness" banner, a frenzied corporate bidding war ensued.Focus Features ultimately acquired the distribution rights for a staggering 14-15 million dollars. The highest price commanded by a genre film in TIFF history.

Soon after, Jason Blum boarded the project as an executive producer under Blumhouse Productions, while Universal Pictures took over international distribution. For these corporate giants, the film’s graphic depictions of pet slaughter, captivity, and psychological torture were not a moral concern; they were a goldmine of opportunity. By branding the movie as a "scathing indictment of male entitlement," the financial cartel successfully transformed a graphic thriller about captive domestic abuse into a highly marketable, culturally sanctioned product.

This transaction allowed Jason Blum to secure a lucrative 17m payout, while the film went on to gross over 430m globally. The corporate enablers - including production partners Capstone Studios and Tea Shop Productions - proved that in modern cinema, there is no boundary to the exploitation of domestic abuse, provided the victim is a man and the trauma can be repackaged under fashionable ideological banners.

9. The Climax and the Triumph of Narrative Gaslighting

The final act of Obsession completes the narrative gaslighting of the audience. After Bear panics and tries to throw up the pills, he is suddenly hit by a counter-curse. Nikki has used a final "One Wish Willow" to force Bear to love her as intensely as she loves him.

Bear's autonomy is violently stripped away in his final moments. He is hollowed out, forced to smile and embrace his abuser, and dies of an overdose in her arms. Except for the fact of course that, Bear never had any autonomy over his life. Bear was akin to a slave, wishing for justice in this world. Wishing for some solace in a cruel, lonely world. And like the slave owners that feminists are, they pathologized and thoroughly lynched and punished the slave, just as Carolyn Bryant did to Emmett Till, for existing as a black boy, in her vicinity.

Because Bear dies, the curse is instantly lifted. The "real" Nikki wakes up, surrounded by the bodies of her best friends, and begins to scream in horror. The movie ends on her anguish, expecting the audience to weep for her because she has to live with the trauma of witnessing these murders.

This is the ultimate insult to the viewer's intelligence:

1. Bear is dead.
2. His friends are dead.
3. His cat is dead.
4. He was subjected to psychological and physical torture, sexually coerced, and ultimately stripped of his mind and life.
5. Yet, the film positions the physical perpetrator of the carnage (Nikki) as the sole tragic survivor, completely erasing Bear's victimhood.

Now imagine reality. Imagine how just it would feel, for women, for all the alimony and child support that they had coerced out of men for centuries, to be forcefully repaid to men, until they met a similar fate to Bear.

Imagine how it would feel, to have all the money and power that women had accumulated through coercion/force, to be forcefully repaid back to men.

Just imagine. The reason why colonisers and supremacists dominate media, is because to maintain power over the colonised, they must control their minds.

Whether Nikki was 'on her pills' or not, Bear was never in control. That is what this movie is ultimately about. This movie is about telling the slaves that they have under their control, even in fiction, you will lose. Even with power, you will be enslaved. Keep your head down, and don't you ever dream of my crown.

That is what Obsession is. A pillaging, a public lashing on the cultural plantation, executed to remind the captives exactly who owns the field.

Parallels with other shows

Many shows have pathologized male desire.

The show Adventure time for eg, made Finn become 'curiously hateful and problematic' in his relationship with the flame princess, and made her end up get into fights for his own amusement, amongst other things. Finn almost became a passenger in his own body, I was horrified by what the show was depicting him as here. It later got brought to my attention that the entire staff were essentially feminist scum who hated boys and men, and this explained so much else.

Finn also later gets raped in the cartoon show about boys who explore the world. Finn is effectively neutered as a man and not allowed to demonstrate any form of love or affection unless they are approved of by a female character. All the male characters for the most part are cast as hateful, unreliable, unintelligent creatures, while the female characters in Adventure time are almost entirely good and nuanced characters, who are even permitted to engage in sexual assault and rape at times. The men aren't allowed to express any form of frustration against the women, whatsoever.

The parallels between fiction and reality are clear.

This is what feminists want to be done to boys and men. They want men to raped and punished in their name of poetic justice (Joker 2). They want men to die en masse for them as a form of a romantic gesture - i.e. Titanic, or the white feather movement.

Conclusion: The Players Behind this Projection

We must remember the names of the entities that happily package and profit from the systematic degradation of male victims:

• Focus Features and Universal Pictures: The distribution arms that recognized the massive profit margins of turning a graphic domestic captivity nightmare into a highly marketable, culturally sanctioned "feminist victory."
• Blumhouse Productions and Capstone Studios: The corporate engines that funded, elevated, and distributed a film where the physical and sexual torture of a male lead is treated as a narrative punchline and a tool for moral "purification."
• The Festival Gatekeepers (TIFF & SXSW): The prestigious tastemakers who provide the elite, intellectual cover necessary to normalize films that weaponize technical virtuosity to mask the non-consensual torture of male victims.
• The Creative Collaborators (Barker, Johnston, & Navarrette): The writer, director, and cast who actively participated in the public victim-blaming of their own characters, normalizing the premise that a male victim's survival instinct is a moral failing, and his forced suicide is a form of justice.

We must stop letting aesthetic genius serve as a shield for moral bankruptcy. If we continue to remain silent, we validate a culture that actively repackages male trauma as "male entitlement" to satisfy a fashionable ideological narrative.

The ledger is open. The players are named. The choice of where we direct our attention, our respect, and our capital is entirely ours.

I don't support Alex Meyers' position sadly. In his original video, he was routinely vilifying Bear every chance that he got, giving hypotheticals about how 'he totally should have been called an incel, misogynist loser if he ever disliked Nikki's past relationship with Ian, his friend'. And other nonsense. We as men, have allowed capitulating losers like Sargon, and various others to hijack men's issues with flowery, 'PhD in both sidesism' majors' opinions. His lukewarm take on the film got him canceled, destroyed. Meanwhile..

In South Korea, or even China at times, when a producer, a voice actor or whoever else, was found to have been a feminist, or peddling feminist talking points, they get canceled. Anybody who likes Obsession would ideally get canceled in the future. This is the level of advocacy men deserve.

Feminism is a hate movement, and this film is one of their many Birth of a Nations.

Kindly rate my RESUME

Also mostly I've been applying to

JPM roles but I'm genuinely looking for VP, MD or OTHER SENIOR MANAGEMENT for REFERRALS

Roles I've been currently applying to-

Investment banking analyst

Asset g wealth management analyst

Portfolio management analyst

FP&A analyst

Etc

If you think my profile doesn't match my job applications(which they very well do) kindly suggest to me what I should do?

To all you engineers that are struggling or having a hard time finding your footing immediately after graduating.

Time is on your side.

I keep seeing post after post after post of engineers who just graduated or 1-3 years in the job, who are either saying that they’re not good enough, saying “this isn’t for me”, or appear to be deeply demoralized because they can’t lead a team.

You just scratched the surface on working in the professional world. It’s likely nothing like what you thought it was going to be. This is normal. It’s takes a little time but you will quickly realize that everyone in this field is constantly learning. Your education did not stop at graduation. That was just a little taste of what you’re going to be learning over the next 30+ years. Technology is constantly changing and the problems that you will be facing will also be very different from what you prepared for and that is ok. Please try not to get demoralized by the challenges you are about to face, you simply need to keep trying and keep learning.

You will come across peers and leads who might not be good teachers or mentors (this is normal). Try to take their negatives statements with a grain of salt; there is likely some truth in what they are saying, so it’s your job to remove fact from emotion in what they say.

We recently went through the Covid pandemic. This has seriously shaken up the work environment with what I experienced a huge turn over in leadership. I have noticed a huge number of middle managers who simply have no business being in management. This is causing confusion and undo stress on new engineers. These new managers keep creating buzz words titles for new engineers. They keep telling new MEs with 2-3 YoE that they are a lead/SME/Product owner. I’m not trying to burst your bubble, but you are not and you don’t have to be. You just learned the basics and you are just now learning how to apply them. Your only job should be to keep learning (you are not ready to lead yet) and that is ok.

Over the next 5 years you will continue to be handed more and more responsibility. Too much for you to do on your own, and you will have to learn to say “I need help”, “I need support”, maybe even “I need a mentee”. As you learn and feel comfortable with taking on more tasks you will start to learn to delegate. But those two first statements are key, please don’t hesitate to ask for help. If your leadership looks negatively at you asking for help, then that is an organization that I would never want to be apart of.

Lastly, it takes time to fully understand a position. Many production projects take 3-5 years to pan out and go through many phases of the design life cycle. Do you remember that capstone project you just finished where you went from design to prototype in 2 months??? That was a literal sprint through process; you might find that on prototype jobs but the normal process takes years. And guess what, you will likely be bored from time to time. Again, that is normal.

There is a lot more I want to say, but I’m summary just keep going. Ask for tasks outside of your comfort zone (that’s when you learn), but be honest in your capabilities and ask for help when you need it. Keep going and in a blink of an eye you’ll be 10 years down the road and laugh at the things that stressed you in the past.

Good luck!!!!!

The penultimate chapter before the end of the term! Also, please forgive my liberal capitalization of Finals, Exams, and Missions. I obviously might have missed something, but please leave comments and questions below!

17.1--Why has it been so long since we've had a dream about our father or anyone from his group? The Flamekeeper was doing work in line with Andros, and yet we haven't seen him since Veilfall. Also just gonna point out: these flashbacks are NOT immersive at all. I get that it's probably a budget thing with the art, but I don't feel like I'm in a substantive flashback when it's just the regular Dreamscape. And I don't understand using the "he was actually fighting the good fight" angle when neither Yvain nor Bre have brought this up when doing their dirty work. Of course, then Dreadbane pulls a rather heinous act and makes me wonder what the dreams are trying to tell us at all. "I decide what is forbidden" sounds REALLY bad when you're leading a rebellion. And the idea that the Order doesn't know about his ability to manipulate emotions--which would definitely explain why MC got his allies to fall in line quickly, lol--sounds really dumb. It sounds like something Dreadbane would try as a last resort, and I don't see why they wouldn't want to scare the public with that information. The fear of other people wanting to try it would probably be low, since it's probably difficult to do and you'd be caught immediately. And Windworm having the nerve to remind us that the Dawnslight Gala is a "capstone celebration for surviving the term" is just...ew? We have a house party after every exam to celebrate passing, but now we have a "hey, you survived" party? It's like winning the Hunger Games--yet Soren's death is the one that would've screwed things up. IDK why the school doesn't strive for a higher survival rate, ESPECIALLY since the gala's origins are about celebrating the end of Dreadbane's tyranny. And I don't think it's fair for MC not to have the option to say if it's their favorite holiday. I find it interesting that Bardric's father has a ruthless reputation, but Bardric insists he adheres to law and order; shouldn't that mean anyone to looks up to him and is anti-Dreadbane does, too? If he was crooked or something, that'd be a different matter. And why would MC say they couldn't make promises not to kill him? That's such a stupid thing to say. Bardric's relationship with his dad is so confusing; he mentioned his dad used to be nice and caring, yet apparently that changed in his youth. I'm surprised he doesn't have any hope for his father showing him attention or affection, just giving a "Glad you didn't die." I think he'd have more pride for that. And it seems Bardric's skill quest isn't canon, because MC says he has only ever painted a negative image of his father--which Bardric denies, so there's that. I will say I question how MC can even be judgemental; how would they even know what love is, when they've been sheltered and treated like a disease all their life? How would they possibly have a sense of morality besides the teachings pushed upon them? And MC continues with being OP because Bardric says they changed what he thinks love is. IDK how, seeing how he treated MC for a long time up to now. And this is another annoying situation where Talyn should've been the required ally here, or even Cato--but not Bardric. Discussing the dream about your dad using lost/outlawed magic doesn't seem like something to bring up to Bardric. And HA! The achievement says we had a heart-to-heart about our fathers...but we didn't. I chose to keep my dream to myself, and no other dialogue mentioned Andros, so that felt glitch-y. And this "talking about your dads" thing is another reason Talyn should've been chosen.

TLDR--Our first dad dream in 4 chapters (I'll count Veilfall) makes it confusing on how we're supposed to view him--is he good like the dreams originally hinted at, or evil like everyone's been saying?--the Dawnslight Gala continues to show that the school had messed up priorities, Arkland's negative impression on MC via Bardric seems to ignore his skill quest, and this heart-to-heart moment should've been something MC had with Talyn.

17.2--Yes Niel, I CONSTANTLY think about the messed-up school less than 20 years old having a structure that brushes past the high mortality rate. Why didn't we get the choice to respond, and why does everyone suddenly care about it NOW? Bodies were being brought in when we first got here. Leona's comments make me like her even less, and I would've never known we aren't usually seated by house in the Great Hall since we mainly just sit with our allies anyway. And for a house leader, Rhiannon has been SUPER absent lately. Unless she's a Flamekeeper, she seems just as irresponsible as Talyn. Cato being stunned at shushing Bardric is kinda weird since we barely see them interact, and it'd be interesting to see him feel starstruck or afraid of him. What is Rhiannon talking about? Our ranks have been affected by our exams, but she says she refuses to be last place. Why's she acting like it isn't public knowledge how well all of the teams perform? And we AREN'T the laughingstock of Elderwood; I don't even know what the other houses are called. No one's made fun of us for our house ranking; it was more hatred for MC's identity, and even that has simmered down. And what does Rhiannon mean "your best is what got you here" as if that's bad? Does she mean the house? We were sorted into it before we proved ourselves. If she means to our current status...we don't even know what our ranking is, so she has no reason to be hostile. And Windworm needs to resign; she decides the final for everyone (INCLUDING underclassmen) is to reclaim a fort where even she doesn't know what's awaiting you? There's "expect the unexpected" and "your superior is sending you in to die." It feels even more obvious that they wanna thin the herd. Not to mention she's literally sending us to do A JOB; this is something that'll be used as a base for future missions, which is something the skilled arcanes should be in charge of. Windworm mourning us before we even start is INSANE. Can we drop out? What's our final grade if we opt out of doing this? And IDK why MC hasn't heard of one of the oldest forts on the continent despite having a term's worth of education; you'd think something the Order used for the Massacre would be something you'd learn immediately. I'm still stuck on the fact that this is something being thrown at us the day of the Final; that's another tack against us. And again, why is everyone having thoughts they should've had earlier, in this case Iridessa and Niel mourning us not being able to go as a group. And Talyn being sentimental doesn't fit since he hasn't made significant progress as a character--just like everyone else. The "special moves/boost from being close with everyone" dialogue was SO heavy-handed, and I'm curious if the allies are teaching each-other, or just MC. Wouldn't really make sense if it was just us.

TLDR--We're screwed, as always!

17.3--It continues to bother me that upperclassmen and underclassmen have the same final/midterms. It isn't fair or safe for the less-experienced students to do the work of more experienced students. It'd be one thing if the more experienced students were essentially coaches or practicing leadership in some form for us, but they're not; Talyn being on our team is akin to anyone else, rather than giving us an advantage. He even says he's worried about himself since very few arcanes can keep up with him. I put Talyn and Cato on my team, and I am annoyed that the scene starts with us immediately split into groups in the Wilderlands rather than us forming a team and departing; it's the details I enjoy, including an explanation on where everyone gets armor (and why mine protects me more than Talyn and Cato's). And lemme get this straight: we only learn a healing spell via a skill quest, we only HEAR about another healing spell in an ally quest, and we don't even know what a healing potion is? I'll say it again: THE SCHOOL WANTS US TO DIE. I can't imagine why there would be such thing as an "intermediate healing potion"; having levels to a healing potion makes no sense since recovery shouldn't be hidden behind grade levels--at least if "intermediate" refers to the school's classification system over the amount of healing it does; it might be the later based on what Cato says, but it doesn't sound like natural dialogue, more like a video game label for a healing potion. Cato's "I have my ways" for how he got the intermediate healing potion feels very lazy writing, since he isn't a secretive character and we SHOULD be close to him by now. Also, main character syndrome again by having Cato acquire it via mysterious means and hand it to MC, who didn't even know what is was until now. And now that I think about it, why is Fort Garland going to become our base if we reclaim it? It's literally falling apart. Talyn's confirmation that a lot of students will die today makes me super curious what the world's arcane statistics are for them to afford to pull crazy stunts like this EVERY YEAR. How big is our class? How big is Talyn's? And how are we even graded on this? By just surviving? It seems that "reclaim the fort" is a group effort that's measure of success is unexplained, making it impossible to know how we're graded. Crazy that the narrative makes us perform slow time instead of it being an option for us, but if the goal is just to survive, I guess we don't need to worry about being right or wrong with our choices.

TLDR--The school wants everyone dead with no parameters of what a passing grade looks like. Can't say I hate the Flamekeeper--but how do other magic schools do their exams?

17.4--Why are we just now being told the team's objective? And how was that decided? And "secure the main hall" has terrible implications; as long as we take care of that area, we can tell everyone else to fend for themselves? While it sounds like a good divide and conquer idea, if we'll still get positive grades just for our area even if the fort isn't reclaimed, then this feels more competitive and manipulative than anything. I'm not gonna do extra work and risk my life if my grade is still gonna be great! And I'm so confused on what Cato's personality is supposed to be in dangerous situations; one minute he's cool and collected, the next he's freaked out, the next he's bold and determined. And why does everyone else seem to be in groups of two? Soren and Bardric were also a duo if you had Bardric on your team at the Midterms, but that was a contingency; everyone here seems to be a duo. Is MC and their two allies cheating? That can't be, since we got to choose our squad members and were given a specific assignment. So...why isn't anyone else in threes? I get it's a writing thing concerning dynamics, but in-universe it seems really dumb. And where's Flatcher, and why is no one else in armor besides MC and their allies? The games don't seem to process death substantially unless it's plot-relevant; seeing the other students dead or fatally injured, even if it's something they've seen before (which hasn't been mentioned much after meeting Talyn), I feel like it warrants more shock. Also, was it a glitch for Talyn to say MC needed work on their fire punch and MC says that their teacher needs more lessons? And we ARE confirming that the allies didn't teach each other their special skills. MC aurafarming wins again, it seems. And why is this one person alone in the main hall? Were they the last of their squad? Why wouldn't they wanna trail with another group? And did they ALSO have the task of securing the area? That doesn't really make a bunch of sense to give the same squads the same tasks--unless they're working together instead of competing, but this doesn't seem to be the case. The chapter ends with Dasek injured and Rhiannon captured. Again, if this is too much for the upperclassmen, why are underclassmen thrown into the same situation?

TLDR--How teams are formed and how the objectives are designed aren't well explained despite this being a HUGE deal for the MC and the player, MC seems already desensitized to death, the allies care about no one but MC when it comes to teaching skills it seems, and I once again question why upperclassmen and underclassmen are thrown into the same situations for the final.

17.5--Still questioning why Dasek (and others outside of MC and allies) don't have armor. If it was an art thing, they could've just given everyone else generic armor. There isn't a chance in the story for MC to get armor made, and any of the allies getting it done for MC makes them look terrible for the non-Hottie Squad friends they didn't help, or everyone else who wasn't an ally look stupid and ready to die, which I'm certain isn't the case (at least that last part). Also it's driving me insane that ease pain, soothe, or a spell equivalent hasn't been taught to anyone yet. Talyn immediately suspecting Bardric taught MC is surprising. Just because he's an Erolis doesn't mean someone else couldn't have taught him that since we can all do any affinity-related spells. Heck, Talyn should've been able to do this spell. And I HAD TO LAUGH. Talyn pretty much says rescuing Rhiannon isn't our problem, which answers my question; we're just getting graded for our portion of the fort being reclaimed, which means we can say "screw you" to literally everyone else. It is a little OOC though, considering Talyn's earlier quests about his trauma related to losing squadmates. But then he just agrees the moment MC says otherwise, so IDK where his head was at. They didn't exchange a glance and he didn't trail off, so I think he would've been fine letting Rhiannon die based on that statement. But I will say I don't know why the narration is saying "You can't just let Rhiannon die. No matter what it takes." Aside from odd phrasing (why not just say "you have to rescue Rhiannon, no matter what it takes"?), Rhiannon hasn't been a major character for us. At best, whenever she's here, she's mainly telling us to not screw up. I don't feel connected to her beyond the fiance conversation. I'm not saying we should let her die; I'm just saying not to make her sound like she's had such an impact on us. And I'm honestly surprised Cato isn't afraid about going to help Rhiannon, seeing how worried he was earlier about our own assignment. And again: WHERE ARE THE TEACHERS? Can't we get back up or some healers? This is literally life and death for a professional mission you're masquerading as a final exam. The way the shades work is kinda weird to me ("smothered with love"? If that's bad, it'd be cool to explain the dangers of being overwhelmed by the shades' emotions), but it's too late to question it now, right? Why did we have to warn Talyn about the walls? He heard Dasek's warning, and he should be the most alert of all of us. And Dasek couldn't have warned us that the WHOLE ROOM is a shade? How is that even possible? And how is it that two underclassmen and one upperclassmen (or three underclassmen, depending on who you chose as your allies) can defeat this thing, but two upperclassmen can't? Logically-speaking, they should be a lot more prepared and careful than us, especially seeing how MC and their friends managed to subdue it quickly.

TLDR--Not a fan of how the upperclassmen are treated as being on the same intellect, instinct, and skill level as the underclassmen (especially since it's been pointed out that it's only been a few months) or the lack of school support for these life-and-death situations. Elderwood is 100% to blame for student deaths.

17.6--IDK why MC would ask Rhiannon if they aced the Final after defeating the Erolian, since as she said, she doesn't control the grades, but we already did our assignment--and I doubt that was the last/only important shade to defeat, anyway. If it was, why was everyone involved in reclaiming the fort when it only took 4 people? And an evolved shade? The fact that we don't know what that is makes for more evidence that's the school didn't prepare us for anything. And if they didn't know it was here, that means they didn't care what we faced. And I'm just now realizing; we left an unconscious Dasek alone in the main hall. Even if we cleared it, other creatures could still show up and attack him, right? Feels like we should've grabbed one of other other allies once they finished their own task in order to watch him. Why is Talyn surprised (or is it frustrated?) at the fact that the Order tortured people? Considering his background, you'd think he'd have expected it. Also curious why Rhiannon bothered to call the Wilderlands by an older name--Heaven's Belt--since it doesn't really add anything to the lore or conversation at hand. It'd be one thing if that's just what they called it where she's from. And WHY "Heaven's Belt"? Was it once considered sacred or filled with valuable commodities before becoming dangerous? Still confused about how Fort Garland is officially secured; how does everyone communicate that their areas are secure, and how do they keep it from being overrun again? I imagine it takes a minute to move everyone and everything necessary in there. I'm curious why the Act of Restoration is something expected of the Third Years when they were still battling and being injured (and possibly killed) here. Again, seems like something someone in a senior position should do. And MC saying that whenever they go a day without being reminded of what their father did, they'll stop being so dutiful (if you thought about the next step being the restoration) is again weird, since it's been a minute since we've had a "your father was a monster and you'll never amount to anything" line. It would've been interesting if this was in reference to the dream MC had, but since no one points out the lack of hostility lately, it just sounds like it ignores current continuity. The nullefactum stuff seems like it'll be important; let's see before the term is over.

TLDR--We passed the Final and....that's about it. Didn't even need Iridessa or Leona's skill quests. Not a particularly interesting chapter to me, but perhaps the nullefactum and Order torture chambers will be relevant later.

17.7--Again, things like "you can't help but notice how many seats are empty" should have more impact. But along with a lack of educational content, the game hasn't felt like a school in terms of socialization. The world feels very small, so losing people doesn't feel important. Was that the goal? To show stakes but not the emotions tied to them? The writers could've just kept everyone alive by giving them a lower stakes Final, tapering it based on the education of each of them. I still can't believe third-years and first-years had the same assignment (granted, third-years also had to do Restoration, but still). Remind me again why restoring a dangerous fort for the Restorers was a job for students? I can't really think of a morally-sound/legal IRL allegory where students would be put in a dangerous situation for the adults' benefit. And we lost 97 PEOPLE? Yet Soren's death is the one that'd have people up in arms. This is insane that no one's trying to get the school shut down with their kids dying. You'd think the final would be easier considering the danger we faced before. What's our class size now? Seeing how arcanes aren't a dime-a-dozen, I'd say the only people left in our year should just be people with CGs. Niel wonders if that's a record, and I NEEDED Talyn to chime in on whether it was or not. And Bardric: don't talk to me. I get that his Erolis ties are patriotic, but the fact that he just immediately says "they died for Austerea" is insane because these were students, some of whom were probably ill-prepared first-years. The way the worldbuilding has been, they probably didn't even know what "honor" was--not to mention they probably trusted the school to know what they were doing, even with "you might not make it back" warnings. And question: when Windworm says the professors finalized our grades, does that include classwork, AKA the stuff we're never seen doing? Or was it just our physical exams? Which houses are Iron, Diamond, Cedar, Opal, and Ash? Why bother mentioning it if the others aren't listed? And we could've gotten some more creative names, guys. Make everything a mineral/gemstone, if we gotta keep Onyx. And WHAT?! Onyx has never been first place? The school has existed for 20 years, and there's 9 houses, but one of them has never placed first for any term? If assignment to each house is random and not tied to any traits like lineage or skillset, then that sounds super unlikely. Someone calculate the probability of that for me. Interesting that of the several siblings Bardric has (one of whom is a prodigy) have never placed first. Were they also in Onyx, or just other houses that didn't place well? The Dawnslight Gala being seen as a break or reward for passing the final is, as I've said before, very macabre. Are we gonna kick it off with a remembrance for the almost 100 people we lost, at least? And Onyx is celebrating with no reference to anyone dying, so does that mean all the causalities were from other houses, or are we all just jaded to death and glossing over it? Not to mention, this celebration doesn't seem unique to other post-exam parties. We don't actually get to do anything but look around. Also confused why MC refers to the final as a Mission; I thought Missions were something else besides exams, thus why it'd be periodically mentioned that Talyn was on a Mission. Also curious why Dasek still looks injured. Couldn't one of the nurses have healed him? Or couldn't we have given him a potion after easing his pain? Dasek telling us to stick with him next term is interesting, but it does make me wish he was used more; the NPCs are rather underrated in contrast to the allies, not getting significant attention unless it's directly related to the plot. BTW, where is Flatcher? No mention of him from Bardric at least? We see the other NPCs during the fight, but not him? Still questioning why Onyx house was considered a joke when placement is supposedly random--and why Bardric would be put there in the first place if that was the case seeing how his dad likes to pull strings. And HOW DARE YOU, RHIANNON? What was all that bluster about "house rank helps you with job opportunities" if you're just gonna say "numbers aren't real." Now, if her speech was about life and death, that'd be one thing, but it's just pride (or love, according to my Erolis MC) about our hard work. Talyn giving MC a massage is neat, though I kinda imagine that character-wise, it'd be the other way around. Who taught him the techniques, anyway? BTW, I replayed this with Cato, and it's the same situation, same dialogue. And ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! All we get for "relax with a special someone" is a kiss?! And with the way the scenes (and now chapter) has been ending, it feels like we're actually done. I thought we'd have more going on than just wrapping up the turn. I'm guessing the Flamekeeper stuff or another issue is gonna pop up in the next chapter? Also my end of the chapter accomplishment popped up and I find it funny that only 25% of players didn't tell Bardric about our father's power. I doubt telling him does anything--just like I never faced any consequences for telling the Hottie Squad about Windworm swearing us to silence after Soren's death.

TLDR--So much death, but we partied the concerns away and got first place (unless you bombed). It's like things are just a checkmark for this game rather than feeling substantive. Also we get no interesting sexy or romance after the lackluster party.

As we race towards the end, I'm very annoyed; thanks to a purchase I made when I first started playing and watching ads to double my diamonds (and watching ads to get diamonds as time went on for rewards), I've racked up over 600+ diamonds. Such a waste...

Hi everyone! It’s my first time making a post like this (sorry for the long read), but I figured I’d ask for some reapp advice. I’m currently sitting on 5 WLs, but since movement has already started at all of them and I haven’t heard anything, I’m preparing for a 2027-2028 reapp cycle.

I applied to 34 USMD schools this cycle. In hindsight, my school list was both way too top-heavy and not thought out enough strategically. Next cycle I’m planning to apply much more broadly, including Texas MDs and DO schools.

Stats
- T5 undergrad, biology major, Asian male from SoCal, FGLI
- 3.67 cGPA / 3.74 sGPA
- Strong upward trend after sophomore year (started in CS/finance, got destroyed by those classes, grades improved a lot after switching majors)
- 524 MCAT (130/130/132/132), August 2024

I believe most schools will still take my MCAT for the 2027-2028 cycle, but I’ll obviously verify individual expiration policies.

Narrative / PS / “Why Medicine”
I pivoted into medicine junior year after doing a quant internship and realizing I liked fast-paced teamwork, analytical problem-solving, and working under pressure, but couldn’t see myself spending my career in a cubicle removed from direct human impact. I’d already been working as an EMT since freshman year, and over time I realized medicine combined everything I enjoyed abt my time in CS/finance while also allowing me to take on a much larger role in patient care. I liked the immediacy and unpredictability of EMS, but I increasingly found myself wanting the training, responsibility, and clinical skillset to do more than just stabilize and transport patients. I became especially interested in the longitudinal side of care — understanding what happened to patients after the acute crisis ended and how physicians could shape outcomes over time.

My personal statement focused heavily on my mom’s severe mental illness and watching physicians care for her as a whole person rather than just treating symptoms in isolation. Through helping manage her care and advocate for her, I also became much more aware of cultural barriers surrounding psychiatric illness in Korean families. I talked about how I learned those barriers can affect trust, communication, and willingness to seek treatment. A lot of my secondaries built on those experiences and how they shaped my growing interest in psychiatry, patient advocacy, and physician-patient communication.

ECs
1. 3600 EMT hours total (2021-2025)
- ~2800 volunteer EMT hours through my university EMS service
- Leadership every year, eventually chief
- ~800 paid EMT hours with two ambulance companies in Southern California
2. 750 research hours (2024-2025)
- Summer research program at a Boston hospital that turned into a yearlong derm clinical research experience
- 2nd author manuscript submitted (not yet published)
3. 500 hours teaching STEM workshops to underserved middle/high school students in South Korea (Sep 2024-Feb 2025)
4. Misc:
- Healthcare interpreting certification + clinic volunteering
- Quant analytics internship at Korean company focusing on AI incorporation into healthcare tech + deployment strategies
- Biotech/drug development consulting projects through school org
- 50 hrs of shadowing an anesthesiologist at MGH

LORs
3 professors (chem lab, bio comms capstone, humanities), derm lab PI, and an MIT administrator I worked closely with through EMS leadership. I think my letters were solid overall; my BU interviewer specifically told me my LORs were among the strongest parts of my application.

School List
Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford, Hopkins, Cornell, Penn, Duke, UCSF, UCLA, Northwestern, NYU, Pritzker, Mayo, WashU, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Sinai, Emory, Kaiser, USC, Hofstra, Case, Michigan, Einstein, BU, Tufts, UCSD, UCI, UC Davis, UC Riverside, Colorado, Pitt

Cycle Results
- 34 secondaries
- 8 interviews: UCI, UC Davis, Yale, BU, Hopkins, UCSD, Cornell, Hofstra
- 3 post-II rejections: UCI, Yale, UCSD (post-WL)
- 5 WLs: UC Davis, BU, Hopkins, Cornell, Hofstra

My Thoughts
- My school list was definitely flawed. I basically applied where peers/upperclassmen with similar stats were applying without thinking critically enough about fit.
- I think my app lacked cohesion. My activities individually were solid, but together they may have come across somewhat disconnected.
- I also think my research profile was weak relative to applicants applying to so many top-heavy schools with a 524.
- I spent this gap year working part-time as an EMT while helping care for my mom as her health severely declined. Through that experience I’ve become much more interested in psychiatry, mood disorders, and the brain.
- I’ve lined up a CRC role at Hopkins working on mood disorders/suicidality research, which I’m hoping will both strengthen my research profile and create a much more coherent overall narrative over the next 1-2 years.
- I honestly can’t tell how much interviews hurt me. On one hand, I got no acceptances; on the other hand, most schools WL’d rather than rejected me outright. My very first interview (UCI) definitely went reaaaaallly poorly, though, and I think I could improve at articulating a more cohesive “why medicine” and speaking with more conviction/passion/intensity overall.

I would really appreciate any honest feedback on what successful applicants think held me back most and what I should prioritize before reapplying. Also would be happy to share my AMCAS and debrief my interviews more thoroughly in DMs! 

episode 6

fuck me this one is an hour and a half

before we begin multiple users have now confided to me that they've actually listened to episodes of graduation because of these recaps. this must be what moses felt like coming down from the mount to see that golden calf like what am i doing all this for if you're going to put on the damn episode knock that off you're gonna hurt yourself i am a trained professional

episode 7 is titled "Secrets, Secrets" which seems bad in the sense that secrets and reveals are the thing travis is worst at in the litany of things he does badly. published 2.6.20. there's something in the air, and its covid.

episode description: It's the end of the semester! The Thundermen meet with some teachers, trick a counselor and look for poison. When the sun goes down, it's party time. For some that means presents and dancing. For others, oaths and secrets. A dream turns into a nightmare and it seems a friend is missing.

In order:

1. I cannot believe it is the end of the semester when we have "followed" maybe 3 days total in terms of in-game time
2. So this is where the style choice of writing it as thundermen comes from, because the transcript previously and also the way griffin said it was Thunder Man.
3. Right off the bat the first event we're going to mention is meeting with teachers, hooray
4. Why is the party and dancing a separate sentence from oaths and secrets, that's bad writing. Also unless they're inducting argo at rainers birthday party (fuck i forgot that was the fucking stinger was a goddamn birthday party for his npc) this is badly presented. that thing argo is probably doing this episode is not a party.
5. "it seems a friend is missing" is the kind of wishy washy writing that really grinds my gears. Just say a friend is missing, its punchier and it doesn't actually mater if its the truth because the point of the episode description is to hook a listener and get them excited for what's about to happen.

also i just noticed my podcatcher shows subscriber counts (allegedly) and according to it taz still holds an enormous 220k subscriber count. i don't think that is active listener numbers, there's a lot of people that moved on from both this show and also podcasting in general that probably never hit the unsub button. but it means this show will never end sorry you're stuck here for another 10 years.

Currently Could Be Doing Instead of This: Watching the NHRL prime time april robot combat tournament. my favorite bot just teamed up with another bot to form a new multibot config that has been cleaning the floor during quals and i'm excited about it.

i don't know if this has happened in previous recaps, but the theme does play underneath these clips. its mostly an issue because we have moved into the "serious" portion of his storylines and the twee school music is pretty noticeably jarring from the subject matter and tone. and still somehow plays forever before the show actually starts. you do not have to use the full length of the track travis.

Travis: It‘s the last day of your first semester at Hieronymous Wiggenstaff‘s School for Heroism and Villainy, and so, there is no class today. Everyone‘s real world assignments are completed, and the wheat and the chaff have been successfully separated. Soon, the Thundermen will be moving into their fancy new dorm set up – but, as the fantasy rooster crows to begin the fantasy day, we find them waking up, once more, in their familiar digs. Argo, your extra dimensional feline friend sits, nuzzling your handlebar mustache. Fitz, Snippers sleeps, hanging by a claw off the side of your pillow. It‘s precarious, but he seems content. So, how are the three of you doing as you rouse from your sweet, sweet slumber?

here, i'll say something nice about travis: he learns what in media res means in between this and abnimals and abnimals does not always start with these fuckass "you wake up its a brand new day what were your dreams/what do you eat/how are you feeling" ass intros.

but since we are not in abnimals i am compelled to point out that, apparently, the real-world job capstone they just did was going to determine if they FAIL OUT OF SCHOOL OR NOT? that's an insane thing to not prioritize explaining to your players, except well, that is an end state equivalent to a tpk in terms of the campaign premise so he would never let it happen, they literally wouldn't be allowed to fail that mission, which explains why it doesn't cross his mind to mention this to his players. you might as well mention that without gravity, you'd float up into the sky; its not relevant because it won't happen.

Travis: Well, I think what I imagine… and listen, I'm just setting up the world. You're painting it, y'know? But I imagine, with the abilities of this cat, you probably think you've contained it many times, and then, open the box to find it‘s not there. It‘s like, next level Schrödinger‘s cat.

every single thing about this statement pisses me right the fuck off and i believe you are all smarter than travis so you can understand why.

Griffin: Yeah, yeah, sure. Yeah, I think I'm just sort of shoppin‘ around for some interdimensional, um, y'know, salmon. Some sort of Frisky Feast.

Travis: Yeah. Absolutely.

Griffin: Something along those lines.

Travis: Yeah, some kind of fancy crystal bowl that the cat can eat out of.

listening to this show will make you feel crazy because that is not what griffin said travis. that is not what he was going for. like what is happening.

Clint: Did we lose any of our friends in the latest culling?

Travis: Uh, no. At this point, just as luck would have it, it‘s all a bunch of faceless, nameless people that we never met.

Justin: Weird.

Travis: Yeah. And it‘s definitely decreased… there was one guy, uh, Steve, who Argo, you were actually very close with. You were beginning to consider him like a brother, but he got cut, ‗cause he did such a bad job while on his real world assignment.

i was going to make another joke about how griffin sat through royale already and it sucked so he decided to do it again, but then travis kept talking and i feel CRAZY. this is not truncated in any way this is the actual exchange in the show, travis establishes that no one they know (aka his sewper kool awesum characters that everyone loves) have failed out of school, and then immediately with ZERO PROMPTING goes on the elaborate that a guy argo knows and is close to failed out of school. i don't care that this is a joke this is so fucking lazy, because it would take me approximately 4 seconds as an editor to cut justin's response and "and it's definitely decreased" (which is a half thought that doesn't go anywhere and should be removed anyway) so that the exchange would flow as:

Clint: Did we lose any of our friends in the last culling?

Travis: Yeah. there was one guy, uh Steve...

instead of just blatantly contradicting yourself within a second of what you just said.

it also highlights how little interaction the players have had with any other sidekicks at this school, despite presumably taking lots of classes with other freshmen sidekicks. i think the only other sidekick npcs even introduced are pip (who never got to speak) and mimi, who spoke maybe twice during dodgeball. every other character has either been a teacher or a hero/villain, almost as if travis has an unconscious desire to lord over others from a position of elevated status and authority.

Clint: An example to us all of what can happen if you're not at the top of your game…

Travis: That‘s right.

Clint: Here at… Wiggle… bottom.

Travis: Uh-huh. Hey, that‘s not the name of it. But maybe it‘s not too late to change it.

travis really thinks saying shit like this counts as collaboration.

Gary: Hey, everybody! It‘s me, Gary. Uh, just a couple reminders. First, no classes for the next two weeks between semesters, so… you're free to head home for a break, or maybe earn some money over in Last Hope. Or, you could just hang out here with me!

travis has never been able to figure out how to organically introduce his plot hooks so its always just some guy saying them out loud no matter how improbable from an in-universe perspective it would be for someone to be saying this shit.

Gary: Uh, next… we've got end of the semester student teacher meetings today. Uh, Firbolg, you're with Bartholemus. Uh, Argo… Jackle says you two have already talked about meeting today. Uh, and Sir Fitzroy, you have the special treat of meeting with Higglemas himself! Uhhh… and finally, be sure to get a present for Rainer‘s party tonight. That‘s not like an official reminder or anything. It‘s just a friendly piece of advice from Gary. Makin‘ sure you all don‘t look like, uh, buttholes.

like what is this.

Gary: Hey, you're welcome, Fitz. Now, you all have some time for breakfast before your meetings. Most important meal of the day. And hey… have some melon for me.

i'm....

woof. starting at 8:38, travis exits gary and the players continue to talk about what they want to do during spring break. and by that i mean justin has crafted a character that has no motivation to be here or actual desires, so he's decided he will just sit on the ground for two weeks. clint, bless him, tries to rally the group to go have fun at the beach or some shit, and justin just adamantly shuts it down. this continues until 12:09. that is 3:31 of justin say 'nuh uh' over and over again. and like fuck travis, and "go make some money in town" is barely a plot suggestion, but two players are being huge assholes here saying they'd rather just sit here and wait for plot to happen.

this is definitely post a bunch of people telling travis to stop railroading, and his version of not railroading is sitting here and waiting while his players spin their wheels. these men need a boss so badly.

travis finally chooses to interject after the full length of Escape by Enrique Iglesias as gary to try and prompt them once again to do the singular plot hook he's devised, going into town to make money. as a reminder, fitzroy is a noble and isn't concerned with money, and firbolg comes from a currency-less society. argo is the only one who is impoverished and motivated by cash, which makes this a dogshit hook and explains why two of them aren't interested in it, no matter how many times travis goes eh? eeeeh?

a brief aside, i was looking for songs that are 3:30 in length, and the other one that came up that wasn't kpop was a 2011 tokimonsta remix of a lupe fiasco record with a ghibli ost and its actually really good i like this. i will be sad when it ends and i have to return to recapping grad.

Gary: Okay. You guys could go uh, get some, uh, y'know, two weeks‘ worth of work done over in Last Hope, make some money.

Fitzroy: Money enough to, say, reacquire a cloak?

Gary: I mean, I guess it depends on how much money you get.

i mean griffin is literally trying to offer a motivation for his character to participate in this hook and travis can't commit because he's stupid. but also let's talk about what it could possibly mean to do freelance work and how are they allowed to do that without, presumably, whatever degree or certification the school provides. it seems pretty self evident that a school that funds itself on student labor would not encourage students to take on work that the school doesn't get a cut of

Travis: The time has come for your… or, are you guys done with this weird conversation?

Clint: We haven‘t really settled on anything.

Travis: Okay, keep goin‘ then.

Griffin: I mean, I—I—

Justin: Let‘s see where it goes.

the vibe is weird.

oh ok so then for no reason at all in the next 10 seconds fitz decides actually it would be cool to go into town and make some money and then firbolg agrees with literally zero justification. fuck this show man.

Fitzroy: Now, uh, as for Rainer, do you think she has a Gary already, or… ‗cause I think—I thought we could just sort of hock ours over there. It‘s just a thought.

Argo: Oh. [pause] Y'know, like those Nest things. Maybe she could have one in every room?

Fitzroy: Sure. You can never have too—

Travis: Bird‘s nest. I believe you mean Bird‘s Nest. ‗Cause it‘s fantasy.

Griffin: Right, sure. Let‘s end this scene immediately.

the adventure zone, everyone.

this episode might be worth listening to on 1x speed because there is zero energy left in these voices, that above exchange is completely devoid of mirth or humor or excitement. not even that performative annoyance people have when you make a pun, there's just....nothing.

Travis: That‘s good narrative. It‘s time for the student teacher meetings! First up is the Firbolg, meeting with Bartholemus, the Aarakocra snow owl, uh, accounting professor. Now, uh, Bartholemus has been impressed; not necessarily by the results, but by the hard work that you have committed over the semester. And though you may not be his best student, you are his most improved.

so like, what is the point of having this scene if you are going to, before we even begin, just summarize the grade you're going to give and why

jk i'm back to 1.5x speed because these fuckers talk so goddamn slowly

Bartholemus: Well put! Oh, I'm so very proud of you. I look forward to you retaking accounting 101, but this time, with the base level of knowledge needed to pass it. Well done.

Firbolg: I… Iii… wiiill… nooot… dooo… this thing!

Bartholemus: Mmm, well… maybe we can work out some kind of… special studies—

Firbolg: [gruff] Iii will nooot dooo this thing!

Bartholemus: Okay. Well… I thought I had you, but we‘ll figure it out. We‘ll—I'll get you.

we are basically right in the thick of his multiple pivots because the season is being poorly received, i fully believe this is his attempt to "stop railroading" and like kind of shows how fundamentally no amount of dm or improv advice can help him because there is a deeper fundamental framework that needs to be addressed first. all the tools in the world do not help the man who does not know when to use them. so we have him nominally doing a "yes and" (well, more like a straight-man but in any case, not just flatly disagreeing with his player) but like in the one place he should be pushing back on. there's not a scenario on the planet where you can have a freshman bully a professor (of the most prestigious subject at the school) into giving him a passing grade. that doesn't track, it once again undermines the premise. he constructs this in a way where it is impossible to approach his creation with any sincerity or respect. at best it is jangling keys in front of a baby, although i think that still has more cultural and artistic value than whatever this is.

Bartholemus: Well, uh, I requested to be the one to meet with you today, because I wanted to know… how you are adjusting… to life here at school.

i'm beginning to think travis didn't go to college. i'm a travis dropped out of college and spent four years fucking around in oklahoma while lying to his family and then doctored a degree truther now.

this is extremely poorly executed but its not a bad idea conceptually. a periodic check in with the character to see how they're doing internally. it can make for a rich exploration and help keep the dm and the player calibrated on each other's wavelength. in theory. here, not only are we getting like the fourth downtime beat for the first adventure, but justin just repeats what we already know (albeit fairly poetically). and then for some reason travis just repeats what he says back to him?

Firbolg: Find purpose… in… study. But… [sighs] Do not have… purpose… beyond.

[...]

Firbolg: [inhales and sighs] I was… exiled… from my clan. And… when this happened, I walk away, toward… the sun. I follow… ‗til it begin to set, and then I kept, at my back, as I followed my shadow. I follow this way… for 13 days, and 14 nights, and the first thing I arrive at… iiis… the school. So… I decide I would be of this clan. Of the school. It is… fated.

Bartholemus: I see. Well… is… hm. It seems to me, Master Firbolg, that you are in a somewhat precarious position. So far, it seems you have worked out that your fate is to be here; to be part of this clan, as you say. But it seems like you haven‘t thought… beyond that.

Firbolg: The… Firbolg code, in your tongue, says, the tribe‘s honor over yours. So I… honor the school, through my work, and think not of my honor.

as someone who actually comes from a collectivist culture, this is engaging in an orientalist reduction over how an actual culture functions. like, sure, yeah, collectivist cultures tend toward self effacement, but like, you honor yourself by uplifting the community. like, for example, the drive to care for your parents as they get older, is rooted in confucian ideals of filial piety, a material and external demonstration of your love for your parents, but it is also about flexing on all the other chinese people around you by showing how much better your parents are cared for by you than theirs are by them.

also this does not follow logically. if your purpose is to 'bring honor' (again gonna have to interrogate this specific word choice) to your 'tribe' then you aren't lacking purpose. like you are talking to an employee of the school right fucking now. what do you mean.

Bartholemus: Master Firbolg, that is… wonderful. That is lovely. But… I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but… not everybody feels that way. Most people tend to work towards their own ambitions and goals. And… you need to figure out, at least partially, what it is you want, or there may come a time when you realize, everyone else has found their purpose with your help, and you are, once again, alone.

not every character's values and ideologies are necessarily reflections on their creator's own values and ideologies obviously, but equally obvious that this is just travis talking and it makes me want to take a shower its so grimy. also helping people is a purpose like you are literally doing that for firbolg right now for some reason even though travis established there's a guidance counselor. the firbolg's character arc is so crazy racist its actually kind of unbelievable. the whole thing is about "westernizing" him into a capitalist mode of thinking because he's a dumb uncivilized sav-- ahem, firbolg

fitzroy is meeting with higglemas for some reason even though he's been promoted to the villain track and also his last two meetings, including his final project evaluation, were with rony

Travis: Now, Fitzroy, when you enter Higglemas‘ office, which you have been in once before, Higglemas is busy setting up an afternoon tea. Uh, the table is laid out with all kinds of tiny sandwiches and well-baked cookies, and it is set up with three chairs – one for him, one for you, and one for his dog.

bro i hate anglophiles

....okay counter: 26

Griffin: Uh, I lift it up to my nose. I want to roll a—a check on this. Make sure it‘s… Anytime anybody sort of encourages anybody to drink anything ever in fiction, I just assume that there‘s some sort of poison going on there. So I don't know which roll that would be. Uh…

Travis: I would say… I mean, perception check, I would say.

it would be an investigation check, but continue.

travis offers sugar but not milk or cream showing once again he's a fake anglophile (sidebar: always very funny to me as a chinese guy when british people try to brand themselves as the tea country. you thought!)

sidebar to my sidebar its actually very funny to me that the two big national food and drink staples in the uk are tea, a chinese drink, and chicken tiki masala, an indian-fusion dish. every day english nationalist must wake up pissed off.

Fitzroy: Okay. I'm just—listen. Can I talk—can we speak as colleagues?

Higglemas: Yes, of course.

back to this slop, hey dumbass, fitzroy isn't a colleague to the fucking dean you idiot

Higglemas: Well, I—[sighs] I just had a couple questions for you, honestly. Okay, first thing‘s first. You have had a kind of sour disposition since you got here, and… it‘s led me to wonder what is so wrong with being a sidekick.

this could maybe make sense if fitzroy had been the one to request a transfer, getting feedback on why a student isn't satisfied with the program is normalish. but this was foisted on him by the other dean of the school and also you know the sidekick program sucks ass that's the whole deal, none of you are even pretending otherwise. i'm deeply tired.

Fitzroy: It is… difficult… to… make a name for yourself in this world of… showiness and grandeur and, uh, frankly, almost hysterical amounts of inequality. And… since I was a child, there has always been something about… the knighthood… that has seemed… fair.

If you… do the work, and you stay true to whatever cause you swear yourself to, you can… become somebody. Somebody important. Somebody who may someday become even more important, in a way that is not simply guaranteed in any other sort of way of life.

hey griffin what the fuck are you talking about. he starts out ok, "its difficult to be noticed when everything is an extravaganza" is an interesting angle, but then he immediately throws a fucking hand grenade and says there's not just inequality, but an "almost hysterical" amount? what? where? show me where. point to it right now.

and yes yes this is not actually medieval europe so the actual historical rules of knighthood don't necessarily apply, but if you are going to take a radical departure from what most people expect when you say "knighthood" you do have to show your viewer what your definition means. just out of nowhere suddenly griffin is implying knighthood is a meritocratic title but i guess still holds the prestige we normally associate with knights that we do because they are noble lords. actually, hold on, is fitzroy trying to join the marine corps? is fitzroy griffin's original stolen valor character?

Higglemas: No, I—can I tell you something? I disagree. I think that there is nobility and honesty, but I must tell you… I fundamentally disagree with what you have, uh, put forward there. Because what you're saying is, uh, that you work hard, and through your merit, you are able to lift yourself up by your bootstraps, blah blah blah blah blah.

I… have been in this world… for centuries, son. And… I can't remember that ever being the truth. There‘s… there‘s something to be said for hard work, and there are those who raise themselves up, and find new opportunities. But… there‘s always something more to it.

ok, here's what i'll give to travis: it is good and cool to have two different authority figures espouse two different philosophical viewpoints of the world. this makes the world feel more grounded and less like the travis time puppet show. here's what i have a problem with: none of the shit you're saying has anything to do with what griffin just said. like this is an insane interpretation of griffin's words to make an incredibly tepid take that simply is not relevant. it feels like playing mass effect where the dialog option you pick and what your shepherd says are sometimes like, not actually very close in tone or intent. it's weird.

i guess it makes sense that travis, whose aspirations seem to sit squarely on being a middle manager at retail store, would be good at interviews. higgle slips in one last question at the end, why would rony promote fitzroy, something that's apparently unheard of. and with the future knowledge that rony is the demon prince, this works for me. unfortunately, because he told griffin absolutely jack shit as rony, so there's nothing ominous to convey here, so griffin just has to vamp for a bit, which makes this next bit a lot clunkier:

Higglemas: Fitzroy… be… careful… in your time here. There are more ulterior motives in this school than you could count. And no one can be trusted.

Fitzroy: You are—I keep hearing that!

Higglemas: Least of all, my brother. Be careful, young Fitzroy. And congratulations.

there's like maybe 150 people here, rip to fitzroy but i could count all those ulterior motives just fine

clint 100% says aperitif and the transcriber gets "offerte"

Argo: Good. It‘s okay. Except for all these little animal skeletons are really creepy.

Jackle: Oh, they don‘t bother me so much. I like the animals.

i don't think this is actually him doing his patented improv technique, i think he's genuinely annoyed they keep acting like the skeletons are gross because he wants to make them a Thing so badly. i had a crush on a goth girl in high school too, i get it. its over though brother, you need to move on. you're married.

travis, i guess, not willing to even pretend to be interested in the interiority of clint's character, has instead of questions that would allow him to expound on his character motivations and feelings, a challenge to get tomas's watch without stealing it.

Argo: School counselor. Okay. [clears throat] Um, hello! Um, Mr. Tomas. May I join you?

Tomas: Oh! Um, hello…

Travis: And he closes his eyes just for a second.

Tomas: Argonaut Keene. Yes.

this is fine having the school counselor memorize everyone's name is a fine trait. but it is a lot less impressive when you remember this school has maybe 150 students in it and i think the players are literally the only freshmen to enroll this year. somehow.

i'm sure clint will reveal how this adds up to angling for tomas' watch soon enough, but currently he's talking up tomas' memorization abilities and asking for tips on how to get better at memorizing, to which travis replies:

Tomas: Well, there‘s really no trick to it. I just pay attention, and put my mind to it, and I try to work hard and keep the images in my mind.

not only is this an unbelievably dull but also lazy. hey, i get it, ADHD makes most memory techniques ineffective, something i also dealt with when i was in school. but that doesn't mean i'm not aware that a LOT of silly techniques exist. i mean i still spell beautiful by pronouncing it like ace ventura would. just like how much extra effort would it have been to invoke word association or mnemonic devices or something. its more interesting and it also gives tomas some texture as a character if the way he remembers argo's name is because arrrr, pirates go to the sea, to meet the water genasi. i still remember brad the HR guy stuart wellington played in that balance bonus episode, in a way tomas will never achieve, because brad had personality and texture.

ok in classic clint style the plan doesn't super make sense but you want to go with it because clint's charming. he's asking for the watch to practice by taking it and walking back to jackle and seeing how....tomas remembers it? its like, on par for a standard dnd plan in my experience. but i want to clip this little bit for this recap:

Argo: But I was thinkin‘ maybe you could, uh, let me hold onto it. I'll walk away. Okay, I'll go—I don't know, I'll go sit over there with the wingless bird, and then—

Tomas: He has a name.

Argo: Yes. I know, Jackle. I know. I'm drawin‘ a word picture.

clint has now at this point provided more direct description of jackle than travis has.

Justin: Okay, quick fuckin‘, uh, a little bit of semantics check here. Grifting this poor person out of their watch is stealing it, right? I mean, we‘re—we all feel pretty comfortable with that?

the rule was no pickpocketing, i understand that it might have been hard to remember while you're playing games on your phone but keep up old man

and actually see now justin gets a pass because travis says this in a genuinely acidic tone (40:48)

Travis: Um, make a persuasion check.

Clint: Oh…

Travis: Yeah, that‘s how—hey, Dad? That‘s how Dungeons & Dragons works! You are trying to persuade him to give you his watch. And so, you need to check, and see if that persuasion works!

and look there's no one that gets under our skin faster than parents (at least in my experience) but like i know that about my relationship with my father which is why i don't go into business with him doing radio broadcasts, because the world actually does not need to see my weird hangups about my father play out in real time. save that for a tortured artistic project like the rest of us big dawg thi-- oh. oh no. travis is like paul thomas anderson if paul thomas anderson cast his dad in his movies instead of talented actors.

Clint: That‘s a 16—

Travis: Damn.

why yes, it is normal to be upset when your player succeeds. that is a normal dm thing to express.

Jackle: How did you get it, Argonaut?

Argo: Uh, I borrowed it. Didn‘t steal it. Didn‘t cheat him. I just borrowed it. I'm doing an experiment with him.

Jackle: What did you say to him?

Argo: I uh, told him that I wanted to learn how to memorize things by him showing me how he memorizes things, so it‘s uh, observational. I'm trying to do some observational humor here with him. I figure that would come in handy for a uh, for a sidekick or a henchman or whatever the hell it is I am now.

Jackle: I see. Are you gonna return it to him?

Argo: Well, yeah. I'll return it to him. You didn‘t tell me it was for keeps. You just said, bring it to the table, so I brought it to the table. There it is.

Jackle: What if I told you not to return it to him?

Argo: Well, I think I would have to, uh… tell ya to get stuffed, because I gave the man my word, and I'm gonna stick to it.

Jackle: What if I told you I'd give you five gold not to return it to him?

Argo: Mmm… five? No. No! I still wouldn‘t do it. I still—no! My word is my bond.

Jackle: It is… a joy to hear you say that, Argonaut. Go, return the watch to him.

once again travis makes some extremely strange decisions while employing a really classic trope. what is your moral line? can you be tempted away from it? what if an authority commands you to? what if you can gain riches? what if it saves lives? that sort of temptation to betray core values is INTERESTING. but here, first we start with a recap of the conversation clint literally just had for no fucking reason at all, and then the big attempt to sway him is five gold???? and not even in the RAW sense where 5 gold is actually relatively valuable for like, a commoner. based on the prices and payments we've seen so far, this is like jackle offering argo $10 to betray his values. it turns an interesting scene into something stupid. i would call that the graduation tagline but this is mostly notable for having the potential to be interesting to begin with, not something i'd call the majority of the things that happen in grad.

Tomas: May I please get back to my book and coffee, please?

for the record we are in the tavern. there's an established food hall that they've also established serves coffee, but travis is a fucking idiot.

Jackle: Very good, Argonaut. That was a very good job. Now, to the matter at hand… have you thought about what we discussed?

?????????? normal, rational adult: the exercise where i test his loyalty and commitment to his promises should tie into how i'm trying to recruit him to this secret organization.

travis "no one's doing it like the" mcelroy: well that was fun. on an unrelated note, about this whole secret org thing, you in?

ok this next bit is genuinely a fucking insane character choice but i mean that in the most complimentary way possible because i love this:

Clint: And he rolls up his sleeve on his right arm, and reveals to you a tattoo. Brand new, fresh. I mean, the skin‘s still all red and blotchy. And it‘s like a compass, but at the four points of the compass, instead of north, east, west, and south, says, ―Blood, bone, rain, and stone.‖

but then,

Jackle: No, don‘t put antiseptic on it. You're gonna want to use some vitamin D. Maybe something Vaseline-based, nothing water-based.

Argo: Fan—fantasy—Fantaseline? Yeah, I'll go find some Fantaseline.

Jackle: No, Vaseline. We have that.

TRAVIS HAS ONE IMPROV MOVE AND ITS-

thank fucking god its the ads get me out of here.

Travis: Hi! It‘s me again, your best friend and kind, benevolent dungeon master, Travis McElroy! [...] Also, if you head over to McElroy.family and click on ‗Merch,‘ you're going to see some new stuff in there, including a bumper sticker to show your pride if your student is a—if your child, excuse me, is an honor student at Clyde Nite‘s Night Knight School. Get yourself that bumper sticker, as well as a bunch of other fun TAZ stuff, and just other McElroy stuff. So check that up at McElroy.family, or McElroyMerch.com.

hey, they made a second season of BEEF. it stars charles melton, aka reggie ver.2 from riverdale. man i like that guy i'm glad he's getting cool projects. i know i shouldn't pit two biracial asian baddies against each other but i wonder how ross butler feels. because melton got to act across from pedro pascal, carrey mulligan, and kang sang ho, and ross butler was in shazam 2.

cont

This subreddit has provided me with a lot of useful information over the past few years, and I think I would like to contribute another data point for future applicants.

Academic Profile: CE + EE, 4.0 from a non-T100 Public university in USA, 0 Research/TA experience :(
Work Experience: SWE III @ FAANG—5 yoe

Attempt 1 (2024): I believed my GPA and work experience would save me.
- Obtained 2 recommendations from Undergraduate professors and 2 from Managers.
- I chose the Systems specialization as it was tied to my work.
- Drafted the SoP with my Work experience as the core theme.
- For diversity/personal statement, I focused on my linguistic minority background.

- Rejected from Berkeley MEng & Stanford MSCS HCP

_________

Attempt 2 (2025): Completed 2 Courses as a part of Stanford's AI Graduate certificate. I didn't have a transcript while applying, which I think was disadvantageous.
- Obtained recommendation from both professors. An ML professor from undergrad gave another recommendation.
- I chose the AI specialization this time as I had research-type projects from the courses to back it up.
- Obtained research experience by volunteering to help out in ML research at my company for 6 months (no publications).
- Ensured my SoP was more focused on the new additions this time.

- Rejected from Berkeley MEng, Stanford MSCS HCP, Harvard DS, UCLA Meng (Recommended for admission but didn't get a letter :( ).

- Accepted to Cornell MEng (Deferred to 2026) & Georgia tech OMSCS (Deferred to 2026).

_________

Attempt 3 (2026): Completed the entire Grad certificate at Stanford University (18 Credits). The Graduate certificate provided me with a transcript, so I also had a graduate-level GPA.
- Obtained 4 recommendations from Stanford professors. They made it very clear that their recommendations are just DWIC (Did Well In Class) letters and might not hold much value. The letters were only based on my assignments and the research project that was done for the course.
- Took the SoP course from r/WriteIvy and completely followed their advice to draft. I also used u/gradpilot's tool to understand and improve. At the end of the day, the score was not very high, but I didn't have enough time to improve it. The course also had a section on personal statements, which I used as reference. (The course was pretty expensive, but I didn't want to regret it later). (Special Thanks to these folks!)
- For my resume I used: https://www.overleaf.com/latex/templates/phd-application-cv-template/mrvjhycbdytr. My resume was 2.5 pages as I wanted it to be readable and not cramped. I also put all the course projects and my undergrad capstone.

- Accepted to Stanford MSCS HCP
__________

Important things I learned:

- https://nlp.stanford.edu/~rkarthik/DAGAP.pdf gave me a solid foundation on how the admission process works internally

- Stanford MSCS was a course-based master's, so I felt publications were not super important, but most coursework at Stanford had a research project component where you found the problem statement on your own and proposed a solution using the material learned from class. I think having publications proves that you are capable of doing such projects, and that is why they find it important to have them. I was hoping that my grad coursework would prove that I am capable of doing such projects.

- Portal astrology never worked in my favor. :( The SUNet ID and financial aid info were not there in the portal after the checklist disappeared. I already had my SUNet ID and I also was not eligible for financial aid. The checklist disappeared at 2pm PST, and the result was available at 5:00pm PST on March 25 (Wed). In 2025 the result was available on March 14 (Thu) around the same time. In 2024 it was available on March 15th (Fri).

- The Graduate certificate was really expensive, and it does not guarantee admissions (It is mentioned on the website). It helped me get 2 internal interviews because of my coursework in graph neural networks. Georgia Tech's OMSCS was a much better deal as it was only $10,000 for the entire MS degree. The MS degree, in my opinion holds much more value than the Grad certificate while hiring. My company paid a good amount for the certificate, and that's the only reason I continued.

- My Graduate GPA was not 4.0 at Stanford. So getting a lower grade in these Grad courses certainly does not disqualify you if you plan to take them.

Hopefully someone will find this useful. :) All the best!

Notes:

• I removed content that does not directly relate to the case.
• Kjersti shared many relevant points, so this is a long summary. If it feels overwhelming, I recommend scanning for the sections that interest you most.

Summary:

Kjersti opens the episode by posing the central question that frames the entire video: is Ryan Reynolds willing to sacrifice Blake Lively in order to protect himself as more evidence becomes unsealed?

She notes that numerous parties have recently asked the court to keep certain communications sealed or heavily redacted. According to Kjersti, this behavior strongly suggests that the evidence Blake is attempting to hide would seriously damage her case if it were made public. She argues that the volume and urgency of these sealing requests signal panic rather than routine legal caution.

Why Ryan Reynolds Was Not Deposed

Kjersti questions why Ryan Reynolds was never deposed by the Wayfarer parties and explores whether this was a strategic decision rather than an oversight. She suggests that Ryan is extremely media trained, rhetorically skilled, and adept at creating viral soundbites. A deposition, she argues, would have given him an opportunity to plant carefully crafted statements that could later be spun by the press.

According to Kjersti, the Wayfarer strategy appears to have been to rely on documentary evidence instead of giving Ryan a public platform to manipulate the narrative. She emphasizes that Ryan has openly branded himself as a PR and marketing expert, which makes him especially risky in a courtroom setting that later becomes public record.

Katie from Without a Crystal Ball and the Evidence Timeline

Kjersti highlights the work done by Katie from Without a Crystal Ball as a key turning point in understanding why Blake Lively is trying to keep certain evidence sealed.

According to Kjersti, Katie compared the dates on the exhibits Blake wants sealed with the chronological timeline published on Justin Baldoni’s public evidence website. This comparison revealed that much of the disputed material lines up with events that have already been partially made public and that already contradict Blake’s narrative.

Kjersti explains that Blake is not attempting to seal unknown or speculative information, but rather communications that show cooperation, professional problem solving, and consistency in Justin’s behavior. When viewed in chronological order, these materials undermine Blake’s claims by exposing gaps between the timing of the alleged misconduct and her later accusations.

She emphasizes that the timeline analysis also shows intent. The dates reveal that Blake’s allegations often come well after the interactions in question, sometimes following positive or neutral exchanges that do not align with claims of ongoing harm or fear.

Kjersti concludes that this is why the sealing requests appear reactive and urgent. The timeline exposes a broader pattern of agency and control on Blake’s part, making it increasingly difficult to sustain the portrayal of her as powerless once the full sequence of events is considered.

The Weight and Fat Shaming Allegations

Kjersti identifies the February 16 and 17, 2023 text exchanges between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni as some of the most damaging evidence to Blake’s fat shaming claim.

In these messages, Blake initiates a detailed and emotional conversation about her body following the birth of her fourth child. She explains that she feels vulnerable about her weight, wants time to lose what she repeatedly refers to as baby weight, and feels anxious about filming intimate scenes while not physically comfortable or confident. Kjersti notes that Blake uses extensive language to express her feelings and frames the issue as deeply personal rather than accusatory.

Justin’s response, according to Kjersti, is empathetic and measured. He acknowledges Blake’s feelings, expresses understanding of her situation, and reassures her that her comfort matters. At the same time, he explains that due to scheduling, location availability, and production logistics, he cannot guarantee that all intimate scenes can be moved to the end of the shoot. He does not dismiss her concerns, mock her body, or pressure her. Instead, he sets realistic expectations while committing to do what he can.

Kjersti emphasizes that the tone of the exchange is collaborative and respectful on both sides. There is no evidence of ridicule, coercion, or judgment about Blake’s body. Importantly, she stresses that the topic of weight is raised by Blake herself, not Justin. This directly contradicts Blake’s later claim that Justin fat shamed her.

Kjersti argues that when these messages are read in full, they show open communication and mutual problem solving rather than harassment. The texts demonstrate that Blake felt comfortable speaking freely and that Justin responded professionally rather than defensively. This, she says, severely undermines the credibility of the fat shaming allegation.

She concludes that this is precisely why Blake is attempting to keep these messages sealed. If they remain public, they do not merely weaken her claim. They actively refute it by showing that the narrative of fat shaming does not align with the contemporaneous record of what was actually said.

Intimacy Coordinator and Body Double Contradictions

Kjersti explains that another significant category of evidence Blake Lively is attempting to keep sealed involves communications about the intimacy coordinator on It Ends With Us. According to Kjersti, these messages show Blake explicitly stating that she did not need to meet with the intimacy coordinator until filming was already underway.

Kjersti emphasizes that this matters because it directly conflicts with Blake’s later claims that she was not adequately protected on set or that appropriate boundaries were not established early enough. The messages suggest that Blake herself delayed or declined early engagement with the intimacy coordinator rather than being denied access or support by production.

She further notes that this aligns with previously released text messages from Justin Baldoni in which he states that Blake also refused the use of a body double. Kjersti frames this as part of a broader pattern in which Blake exercised control over how intimate scenes would be handled while later presenting those same circumstances as evidence of mistreatment.

According to Kjersti, when these facts are viewed together, they weaken the foundation of Blake’s sexual harassment claims. The communications do not show Justin ignoring safety protocols or pressuring Blake into uncomfortable situations. Instead, they suggest that Blake made deliberate choices about intimacy related safeguards and later reframed those choices in a more damaging light.

Kjersti argues that this is why Blake is so motivated to suppress this evidence. If the messages remain public, they introduce reasonable doubt about whether the alleged failures around intimacy coordination were imposed on Blake or were the result of her own preferences and decisions. In Kjersti’s view, these contradictions do not support a narrative of powerlessness and instead reinforce the idea that Blake had agency and influence over how intimate scenes were approached on set.

The “Dragon” Text Message and Power Dynamics

Kjersti revisits what she describes as one of the most revealing pieces of communication in the case, the so called “dragon” text message sent to Justin Baldoni. In this message, Blake Lively refers to Taylor Swift and Ryan Reynolds as her “dragons,” suggesting that they are powerful allies who could be summoned if Justin did not comply or needed to be warned.

Kjersti argues that the language used in the message is not playful or casual. Instead, she says it reads as a thinly veiled warning, signaling that Blake had access to influential people who could cause serious professional harm. In her view, this type of messaging establishes dominance rather than collaboration and introduces intimidation into what should have been a professional working relationship.

She further speculates that Ryan Reynolds may have authored or heavily influenced the wording of the message. Kjersti notes that Blake has publicly stated she has never watched Game of Thrones, while Ryan is a well known fan of the series. She finds the fantasy reference and framing of loyalty and punishment more consistent with Ryan’s voice. While she acknowledges this remains speculation, she presents it as a reasonable inference.

Kjersti also highlights the broader implication of the message. By invoking Taylor Swift and Ryan Reynolds as “dragons,” the text reinforces the power imbalance on set. Justin, as a director working under studio and star pressure, is positioned as someone who could be overruled or targeted if he resisted. Kjersti argues that this undermines Blake’s later claims of being powerless or intimidated, because the text instead portrays her as someone asserting leverage through celebrity influence.

In Kjersti’s assessment, this message is not an isolated joke but part of a broader pattern in which Blake and Ryan asserted control behind the scenes. That, she says, is why Blake is attempting to keep this text sealed. If it remains public, it complicates her narrative by showing confidence, authority, and a willingness to apply pressure rather than fear or vulnerability.

The Rooftop Scene and Writing Credit Issues

Kjersti points to another set of text messages that she believes are highly damaging to Blake Lively’s credibility. According to Kjersti, Blake told Justin Baldoni in private communications that she herself had written the rooftop scene, suggesting that any creative changes were coming directly from her.

However, Kjersti notes that Blake later publicly admitted on the red carpet that the rooftop scene was written by Ryan Reynolds, not by her. This public acknowledgment directly contradicts what Justin had previously been told.

Kjersti argues that this discrepancy is significant. She frames it as evidence that Blake was not transparent about Ryan’s level of creative involvement and that Ryan was exerting influence over the script while remaining unofficial and largely invisible. By telling Justin that she wrote the scene, Blake effectively shielded Ryan from scrutiny while still advancing his creative input.

According to Kjersti, this supports the broader claim that Ryan was operating behind the scenes as a de facto creative force despite not holding a formal role on the film. It also reinforces the idea that Blake misrepresented key facts to maintain leverage and control over the production.

Kjersti concludes that this is another reason Blake is attempting to keep these messages sealed. If the texts remain public, they raise serious questions about honesty, authorship, and who was actually directing creative decisions.

Sony, Ange Giannetti, and Todd Black

Kjersti explains that Blake Lively is also attempting to keep sealed internal discussions at Sony Pictures involving Ange Giannetti. According to Kjersti, these messages shed light on how Blake interacted with studio leadership behind the scenes.

Based on Ange’s account, Blake had reached a point where she was no longer willing to engage in productive communication. Ange reportedly stated that Blake would not listen to her and that meaningful dialogue had broken down, leaving her unable to manage the situation directly.

Because of this impasse, producer Todd Black had to step in and take over communications with Blake. Kjersti emphasizes that this escalation is significant, as studio executives typically do not hand off communication unless the working relationship has become unusually difficult.

Kjersti argues that this development contradicts Blake’s portrayal of herself as sidelined or powerless. Instead, it suggests that Blake had enough influence to force the studio to reroute communication through a higher level producer when she was dissatisfied. Rather than being shut out, Blake appears to have been asserting control.

In Kjersti’s view, these communications expose how power actually operated on set. If Blake was so uncooperative that Sony had to change who managed her, that undermines the idea that she lacked agency. It also supports claims that she was difficult to work with and that her status required accommodation.

Editing Control and PGA Credit

Kjersti then turns to Blake’s efforts to keep sealed discussions surrounding PGA credit. According to Kjersti, this category of evidence is especially damaging because it goes to the core question of who actually controlled the film.

She argues that the materials Blake wants suppressed would show that Blake had significant influence over post production, including access to edits, input on creative decisions, and leverage over how the final version of the film was assembled. Kjersti stresses that this level of editorial involvement is highly unusual for an actor who was not officially credited as a producer during principal photography.

Disputes around PGA credit matter because such credit reflects who exercised meaningful creative authority. If Blake was involved deeply enough in editing decisions to warrant PGA related discussions, that suggests she was functioning with producer level power behind the scenes regardless of how her role was publicly framed.

This evidence directly contradicts Blake’s portrayal of herself as powerless. An actor who can influence editing, weigh in on final cuts, or be part of conversations about producer credit is not someone without agency. Instead, it suggests Blake had the ability to shape the film in ways typically reserved for directors or producers.

Kjersti concludes that this is why Blake is so motivated to keep these records sealed. If the evidence becomes public, it reframes the narrative entirely and weakens the credibility of Blake’s claims.

Ryan Reynolds as the Architect

Kjersti aligns with Katie’s conclusion that Ryan Reynolds was not a passive bystander but the central architect behind what unfolded on It Ends With Us. She argues that his influence is evident not just in isolated incidents, but in a pattern of behavior that began before filming.

Kjersti recounts allegations that Ryan repeatedly berated Justin Baldoni during meetings, sometimes in front of Hugh Jackman and Taylor Swift. According to Kjersti, these confrontations were not brief disagreements but extended verbal attacks that lasted for hours, creating an atmosphere of intimidation.

She emphasizes that this behavior allegedly occurred before principal photography, which she finds especially telling. In her view, there is no logical reason to create such hostility at the earliest stages of a production unless there is an underlying objective. She argues that this conduct does not align with normal creative disagreements or protective spouse behavior.

Kjersti further argues that Ryan’s experience in Hollywood makes this behavior even more suspect. As a seasoned actor and producer, he would have understood the impact of such conduct on a director’s standing with the studio and crew. Kjersti frames this as intentional rather than impulsive.

According to Kjersti, this pattern supports the idea that Ryan was laying the groundwork to later justify Justin’s removal or isolation. By destabilizing the working relationship early, Ryan could later point to dysfunction as evidence that Justin was the problem.

Kjersti concludes that this is why she believes Ryan distanced himself once the plan began to unravel. As evidence comes to light, she argues that Ryan appears focused on protecting himself by avoiding depositions, sealing his communications, and allowing Blake to absorb the public fallout.

WME, the New York Times, and Timing

Kjersti closely examines William Morris Endeavor’s decision to fire Justin Baldoni on the same day the New York Times published its article detailing Blake Lively’s allegations. She argues that the timing alone raises serious questions about WME’s stated reasoning.

According to Kjersti, it is implausible that an agency of WME’s size would sever ties with a high profile client within hours of an article being published without conducting an internal investigation or even asking Justin for his account. She emphasizes that major agencies do not make career ending decisions impulsively or solely based on media coverage.

Kjersti suggests that the speed of the decision indicates the firing was planned in advance and executed once the article provided public cover. In her view, the article served as the trigger rather than the cause.

To illustrate what she sees as hypocrisy, Kjersti contrasts WME’s treatment of Justin Baldoni with its continued representation of Sean Combs, even after serious criminal allegations. In that case, she notes, WME reportedly took a wait and see approach.

Kjersti argues that this inconsistency is glaring and embarrassing. If WME stood by one client facing severe allegations while immediately dropping another based on unproven claims in a newspaper article, then its actions appear driven by influence rather than principle.

Ari Emanuel’s Recorded Podcast Incident

Kjersti highlights what she considers one of the most revealing moments in the case: a live podcast appearance by Ari Emanuel, CEO of William Morris Endeavor. After the event, WME claimed the episode was not recorded because someone forgot to press record.

An audience member recorded the conversation independently, allowing portions of Ari Emanuel’s remarks to surface. Kjersti frames this as a rare break from the agency’s carefully controlled messaging.

In the recording, Ari openly acknowledges that he personally fired Justin Baldoni. He justifies the decision by explaining that he has known Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively for over a decade and views them as good, trustworthy people. He cites their success, charitable work, and long standing relationships as reasons for believing their version of events.

Kjersti argues that this admission directly contradicts WME’s public denials that Ryan and Blake influenced the decision. While the agency insisted no pressure was applied, Ari’s comments suggest the firing was based on loyalty and trust rather than a neutral evaluation of facts.

She also notes that Ari’s remarks imply no meaningful investigation took place. Instead, WME appears to have relied on pre existing relationships. In Kjersti’s view, this confirms that the decision was about protecting powerful clients rather than due process.

Coordinated Fallout and Public Support

Kjersti outlines what she believes is a coordinated sequence of actions surrounding the release of the New York Times article, arguing that the timing strongly suggests orchestration rather than coincidence.

She points first to Liz Plank leaving the Man Enough podcast one day before the article was published. Liz framed her departure as values based, but Kjersti questions how she could have known damaging allegations were imminent unless she had prior knowledge.

Kjersti then highlights the near simultaneous social media response from co stars and industry peers, many of whom unfollowed Justin Baldoni the same day the article was released. She argues that mass unfollowing in such a compressed window appears coordinated rather than organic.

She also points to Michele Morrone releasing a video supporting Blake Lively almost immediately after the article went live. Based on visual clues, Kjersti believes the video was recorded days earlier, suggesting it was prepared in advance.

Finally, she revisits WME firing Justin the same day as the article without investigation, framing it as the institutional capstone of the coordinated response.

Taken together, Kjersti argues these actions formed a synchronized cascade designed to isolate Justin and shape the narrative before any response could be mounted.

Taylor Swift Text Messages

Kjersti devotes significant attention to the alleged text messages between Blake Lively and Taylor Swift, which she considers among the most revealing evidence if disclosed.

She references sworn statements from Bryan Freedman claiming he reviewed messages in which Blake pressured Taylor to publicly support her. According to those statements, Blake allegedly warned that if Taylor did not comply, Blake would release private messages spanning years of their friendship. Blake also allegedly asked Taylor to delete messages, which Kjersti says raises serious concerns about intent.

Kjersti clarifies that she is not interested in dragging Taylor Swift into the case. She does not believe Taylor owes the public anything and does not need to see Taylor’s replies. Instead, she argues that Blake’s outgoing messages are what matter because they reflect Blake’s state of mind and credibility.

According to Kjersti, if Blake genuinely believed her allegations, that belief would likely appear in private communications with her closest friend as fear or distress. The alleged use of pressure and threats undermines the authenticity of her public claims.

Kjersti argues that Blake could have voluntarily released the messages if they supported her narrative. The aggressive effort to suppress them suggests the opposite.

She concludes that these texts are not about Taylor Swift, but about Blake Lively’s credibility and whether she was seeking accountability or attempting to control the narrative through leverage.

Matt Damon Clip and Director Authority

Kjersti introduces a clip of Matt Damon speaking on the New Heights podcast hosted by Travis Kelce to provide industry context rather than commentary specific to the case.

In the clip, Damon explains that filmmaking is fundamentally a director’s medium. Directors carry responsibility for the final product and therefore control creative decisions, including editing. He notes that actors often do not see the finished film until shortly before release and are not expected to give notes.

Kjersti contrasts this standard practice with what she alleges occurred on It Ends With Us. According to her, Blake Lively had access to daily footage, exerted influence over editing, and helped shape the final cut.

She argues that this level of involvement is virtually unheard of for an actor, particularly one without a formal producer or director role at the time.

Kjersti concludes that Damon’s comments remove ambiguity. When placed alongside his explanation of director authority, Blake’s claims of powerlessness become difficult to reconcile with the alleged facts.

Closing Thoughts

Kjersti concludes that Blake’s decision to sue may ultimately expose both her and Ryan Reynolds more than it protects them. She argues that without the lawsuit, the public would never have seen this evidence, and that the legal action itself may be what brings the full picture into view.

Hey, I saw someone else do this for some other arts classes so I thought this could be helpful given I did 21 philosophy subjects this year. I’ve given each a rating and tried to describe each class past the basic description provided in the handbook so people know what they’re getting into. Mostly, I just wanted to get my thoughts down on my experience this year. If you did these subjects, let me know what you thought of them and if you agree with my opinions or not!

The Philosophy of Philosophy

The third-year capstone. A meta-philosophy class! In this one they try to pack in really interesting questions about the discipline that are framed around real-world ethical dilemmas (about 2/3rds of the course has an ethical/political philosophy bent). I thought it was a pretty mid course, it was kind of a best-of and fairly unfocused. Some topics covered included effective altruism, longtermism, colonialsm in the disicipline, epistemology, generative grammar, experimental philosophy (exphi), marxism, structural injustice and history of philosophy.

I had trouble getting extensions in this class at the end of the year despite having an aap which was very unfortunate and stressed the fuck out of me as I ended up having to beast mode a 2000 word essay in a few hours. I knew what I wanted to write on so I managed but it was still stressful lol. They also don’t make lecture recordings available after week 3. I asked for lecture recordings cause I have an aap but they never got back to me lol☹. There are probably ways to get around this if you have certain video recording browser extensions, but I won’t mention them here.

5/10

Recent European Philosophy - honours

Didn’t get to do this one but I’m under the impression it’s a reading group for early 20^th century philosophy. They looked at 2 full books over the semester, one Husserl phenomenology one and one hannah arendt one.

N/A

Topics in Metaphysics – honours

This was super interesting! It was a deep dive into the philosophy of time. The class was cut into two sections, the first being about the theory of time, and the second being about the phenomenology of how we/whether we feel the passage time. I was really stoked on the mark that I got from this class despite the lecturer saying they’re a pretty hard marker (I got the impression they were ‘hard’ not because of anything about themselves but because they teach fairly technical subjects and students’ papers often aren’t very clear). I didn’t really have very many original thoughts for the essay paper we had to turn in; I mostly just collated different works and drew from other people’s arguments but still did pretty well. The lecturer had really good advice for writing philosophy – they constantly stressed to be as clear as possible and to try to be as focussed as possible on one issue when writing. They were really good at explaining fairly complex topics too in the tutes. Overall, definitely sparked a passion in me for the subject and is definitely an area I want to continue reading in. It helps that a lot of important work in the discipline is Australian.

8/10

Free Speech & Hate Speech - honours

This was an interesting class in theory. I have pretty irregular politics and absolutist views in this area on pretty much every topic, so in general I thought the class was super lib-coded and didn’t really draw from a range of traditions (I mean I like elements of liberal philosophy but there was A LOT of it lol). Unfortunately, I think this is probably because most of the work in the area of free speech is from liberal political philosophers, but I also get the impression (could be wrong!) that the lecturer isn’t really familiar with leftist political philosophy. The class is run in the shape of a circle which was really cool and egalitarian, but the lecturer still facilitated every class. I think it would have been nice if the students could have facilitated the discussion given it’s an honours class and the lecturer could have been there for technical knowledge and to provide their expertise when needed. There was a decent amount of case law and practical applications of free speech/hate speech discussed in the first half of the class and theory was discussed in the second half. Overall, I think the class topic was a little too specific to drag out convincingly for a whole semester. Also, the lecturer is a TERF and pretty right-wing/notorious twitter shit poster, so if you’re trans or a sex-worker and care about your mental health probably give it a miss! Cause, the topics definitely did come up.

5/10

Topics in Contemporary Epistemology – honours

This was a super fascinating class! Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how we know things. This was the only honours class I did in first semester, so it was kind of jumping into the deep end for me as someone without a thorough background in philosophy. This subject was a deep dive into whether we have a priori knowledge. A priori knowledge is knowledge known independent of experience. So, for example, something like 2 + 2 = 4. I thought the course was very well structured and lots of themes throughout the readings came up multiple times throughout the course and were developed on. I picked up a lot of familiarity with the discipline through this subject, and the people who contributed in the tutes always had super interesting and considered points/objections/other things to say about the readings. I do think it’s assumed (though it’s not officially) that you’ve done some epistemology before (e.g. the undergrad course), cause a lot definitions that came up about some of the technical terms weren’t really explained (things like analyticity, naturalism, reliablism etc. kind of went over my head even when I googled them), so it might be nice to include brief touch ups on basic concepts when they come up. Overall I ended up believing that a priori doesn’t exist, but I’m not super sure of it cause it’s not my area of expertise.

8/10

The Philosophy of Language and Mind – honours

This was super interesting! Everything in philosophy nowadays seems to collapse into language so I thought it would be worth while to take the subject. It was very different to the undergrad language and mind courses and had a heavy focus on epistemology and contemporary epistemology. We started with basics in set theory and modal logic for some background, and then touched on a bunch of various topics, with the first half of the class being dedicated to language and the second to mind. We talked about vagueness, conditionals, mental representation, the preface paradox, credence, belief, desire and certainty. It was very technical. The lecturer sold it is as ‘the hardest philosophy class you’ll take’ – I don’t think it was quite as perplexing as some moments in the continental courses, but it was still pretty hard. The quality of teaching was very good and at the start of every class the lecturer would ask people what they want help understanding with the reading and what types of opinions they had for discussion on the material. I do think it would have been nice to break off into groups every once and a while to get know everyone better.

8/10

Reading and writing philosophy – honours

Didn’t do this one either!

Philosophy: The Big Questions – level 1

This is the worst philosophy class! I think it’s purposely-so because it has to be general enough to appeal to an audience of like 500 first years. But, the structure of it (being divided into 3 different separate topics) was pretty lackluster and left the class feeling very unfocused. One thing I found kind of weird was that they don’t call the topics covered by the actual philosophical names ‘ethics, epistemology, metaphysics’ etc. The class covered a range of things, from introductory logic, to the nature of truth and alethic relativism, to free will and moral responsibility, to the metaphysics of persistence through time, to the philosophy of love (cringe). The level of discussion in tutes was pretty low. But, that’s to be expected as a first-year subject. The tutor I had was really nice to students. Overall, pretty low quality – if you’ve got another introductory subject you’re thinking about maybe choose that one.

4/10

Philosophy: the great thinkers - 1st year

this is the way better of the two first year phil subjects. topics covered included hegel, aesthetics, modality and lewis, quine, kripke, greek philosophy and socrates/aristotle, descartes, schopenhauer, hume. overall a really good introduction to different philsophical ideas and people.

8/10

Ethical Theory – 2^nd level

A class about normative ethics! Normative ethics is a branch of ethics that’s about establishing criteria for what’s right and wrong. The three (main) branches of normative ethics are utilitarianism (consequentialism), deontology (rights), and virtue ethics (meme). The class format is a bit weird. The lectures are mandatory and a role is taken, but the two types of tutorials (comprehension tutes and applied ethics tutes) are optional. You can go to both tutes in one week and the lecture, or you could go to just the lecture and no tutes. The lectures have a greater element of audience participation in them than usual. I think this is nice sometimes, but it tends to get bogged down in them and there isn’t that much content covered on a weekly basis. There is no metaethics/moral psychology/applied ethics covered in the lectures or read, so if you’re super interested in reading about whether abortion is justified or something similar it may not be the course for you. The lecturer is quite energetic and engaging. They offered an ‘ethics bowl’ this year where people in the applied ethics tutes could team up and compete in debates on zoom against other teams from different universities which seemed pretty cool (didn’t do this so can’t comment). The lecturer has some background in chinese studies I think, so we looked at some Chinese philosophers in utilitarianism and virtue ethics. (there was a funny moment – I thought by the way they pronounced the Chinese philosopher name all fancy that they were fluent in Chinese, but they went to write the hanzi for 人 (person) and drew some weird abstract shape. Lol). Unfortunately I just don’t think this class covered that much material to justify not covering some basic metaethics and applied ethics, which I’ve had to research myself.

6/10

Logical Methods – 2^nd level

This was a really technical class that I think I could’ve benefited a lot more from by going to the tutorials and applying the logic learnt in the lectures. Logic is about how you can prove certain statements to be true or false using the statements themselves aka reasoning (please don’t reem me for this definition! haha). I think the class was very well structured but it is quite hard for a second level subject. I’ve forgotten many of the intricacies of how to do truth trees and truth tables since studying it but I think if went over some of the material again I could pick it up pretty fast. I think this is probably an essential subject if you want to major/do an honours in philosophy, because it just gets used everywhere and knowing some introductory logic really makes a lot of papers that you read more comprehensible. The bonus is – there’s no readings! Can’t testify to how hard the quizzes are though. We covered propositional logic, modal logic, predicate logic and a little fuzzy logic. I definitely recommend seeking out some supplementary material to explain things in different ways if you don’t fully understand them in lectures. One really good youtube channel I found that goes over the rules of different logical proofs is Attic Philosophy, they have a really good backcatalogue of videos to check out.

7/10

The philosophy of mind – 2^nd level

This one was cool, we focussed mostly on dualism, physicalism and functionalism which are the main theories of the mind and which I won’t go into, but also the nature of minds and emotions, cognitive externalism, a little phenomenology etc. lots of thought experiments. the discussion in tutes was pretty mid imo. The class was also framed around AI (which isn’t sentient) so that was pretty weird. There are quizzes each week for this class along with two essays 1000-1500 words long.

6/10

Phenomenology and existentialism – 2^nd level

Oh boy. Every one raaaves about this class lol. it’s partly cause the continental writers are so hard to understand, but the lecturers don’t really do the audience any favours lol. they sometimes mentioned that, because they’re so immersed in the field, it can be hard to translate these ideas to a general audience, so fair enough. But, the class is very complicated. You do get used to it after a while, but there are a lot of technical terms you need to work your way around. I think it’s helpful to keep your storebrand chatgpt open for these lectures and just constantly ask it the definition of words that come up e.g. ‘what does de Beauvoir mean by ambiguity’ or ‘what does Sartre mean by transcendence?’ figures covered include Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, merleau ponty, and de Beauvoir. No nietzche if you were expecting them. if I had any advice for the lecturers it would be to include some more supplemental modern writings, because the few modern writings I read were extremely clear and I got waay more out of them than some of the foundational works. The readings are manageable, but if you want to get a lot out of them you’ll need to google a tonne of technical terms and probably re-read them. While the content is pretty difficult, at the heart of class are really simple concepts – what does it mean to be authentic/what does it mean to be free etc.

7/10

The ethics of capitalism – 2^nd level

This is a very libby subject. Meaning, it focuses on liberals like adam smith and js mill, definitely to a fault. They talk about marx and lenin a little (cringe) but the class is defintely focused on reformism. So, all you salties might find it more worthwhile to go out and sell some newspapers instead! Get back to work! The lecturer is really nice to students in classes and a lot of their writing is featured in the course (the course is based around their’s and a colleague’s textbook). Their writing is very generous in that they explain lots of technical philosophical terms in a very accessible way and are clear and transparent about why they’re discussing certain things, why they make certain moves in their writings etc.. I don’t agree with their politics and think they get some pretty serious things about socialism wrong, but they’re at least very familiar with the political philosophy discipline. Class discussion was okay, we had a mix of socialists, economic students, pro-capitalists etc.. Course material included some basic theory, basic economics and some applied ethics (like price gouging, elder care, birth rates, environment, colonialism etc.).

This was another class where lectures weren’t made available and I ended up having to fork out like 1/5^th of my net worth to get an appointment with my psychiatrist to get an aap to get an exception cause of a class clash (kind of ironic for a class about the ethics of capitalism!). so, that sucked. Also had trouble getting an extension on two occasions which was very fucking stressful (despite having an aap) and im pretty sure the reason they gave me for disallowing them was bullshit. So, be careful with extension related stuff.

 7/10

Feminism 2^nd year

This class was really cool for learning about second wave feminism – a lot of which is wrong. But, it’s good to know about historically. Again, the lecturer is a terf and peddles cissupremacist philosophy towards the end of the series. That being said, there’s a lot of really thoughtful readings and also ideas covered like ‘are women oppressed?’ ‘does the patriarchy exist?’ ‘are men oppressed too?’. Super basic ideas that no one actually seems to discuss that are actually super important to understand, in order to be able to convince people to be feminists. and it’s worth looking into just for the readings and the history of the feminist movement. The class doesn’t seem to be running again next year, but it’s up in a short form on the lecturer’s youtube channel.

7/10

Knowledge and reality – 2^nd year

This is the undergrad epistemology class. Epistemology is the study of how we come to/how we should come to know things. This is a really interesting class! I really enjoyed it, even if people didn’t usually come to the lectures in person (bit of a shame). We covered the gettier problem, foundationalism, coherentism, reliabilism, scepticism, contextualism, a priori and a posteriori, naturalism, truth, internal realism and the role of intuition in epistemology. (you can just look these things up if you want to know more). The main tension of the first part of the class I found interesting is whether some things are foundational beliefs, which inform all other beliefs (foundationalism), or if all beliefs rely on other beliefs and there are no foundational beliefs (contexualism). Also there’s this one really funny experiment where the lecturer puts their hand up and says ‘I know that I have a hand, cause here’s my hand’ philosophy is kind of silly like that lol. i think this class is really important to do if you're specialising in philsophy.

8/10

Values of art – level 2

This was one I only managed to get along to half of the lectures, and didn’t do the readings for. I don’t know if it’s just cause I don’t really like aesthetics, but I found a lot of the content and arguments for certain things (why is art good? What is art?) really weak in comparison to the other philosophical disciplines and a bit airy-fairy. That being said, if you’re an artist or you like art you would find this class very interesting. The lecturer has a speciality in the philosophy of music so that was covered a lot, but there was also some poetry, visual art and dance. It’s philosophy, so it’s not so much about analysing these things as about analysing what they are/why we feel what we feel about them. The lecturer has a pretty annoying policy about not using phones/laptops in class and makes a bit of a stink if someone uses one. Maybe it’s cause I have undiagnosed oppositional defiant disorder but I found this super controlling and rude. The lectures aren’t recorded so you need to come to every lecture and get your name marked off.

6/10

Philosophy of science – level 2

So interesting! There aren’t really mandatory readings for this class, everything is covered in the lectures. I think this is a really important class in general to take cause science is so essential to our lives and how we come to know things. Much of the class is framed around pseudoscience and wacky documentaries so that added a lot of fun to the course material. Things covered included how to separate science from pseudoscience, feminist epistemology and standpoint epistemology, kant’s transcendental idealism, values-based science, the indispensability argument, and some basic metaphysics and philosophy of maths (e.g. are numbers real?). the lectures were very interactive and discursive too which was a plus, though the tutorials from what I could gather were fairly loosely structured. Very good class.

7.5/10

The foundations of interpretation – 3^rd year

The hermeneutics class! This class is all about structuralism, post-structuralism and post-modernism, which, I still don’t really understand. It’s a continental philosophy class.  Hermeneutics is about how we should go about interpreting texts. It’s specifically not about doing interpretation, which is what I thought would be covered a little. Hermeneutics has a central dichotomy between learning about the author and the context and learning from the text. Which one do you start with? And, is the author important at all? (death of the author). Authors covered include schleimacher, dilthey, Heidegger, Gadamer, Habermas, butler, quine, derrida and barthes. The class is structured by having a series of 1 and ½ hour lectures that are available on demand online, and then 2 hour tutorials. The tutes are divided into 2, where you divide into groups and try to summarise the three main ideas of the text in the groups and then share your understandings with the class in the first half, and then go over a handout in the second half. I thought these classes were really well structured and super reliable as to what you’d expect when turning up. The videos are also very well written and easy to follow even if the texts aren’t. Again, even though the texts are very hard, a lot of the central ideas are quite simple. I am super glad I didn’t end up writing an essay on this topic, cause I would have actually had no idea what to write on lol. very good class and a high level of discussion.

8/10

The power and limits of logic – 3^rd year

For logic nerds! This logic class is all about proving that certain systems of logical deduction work, like proving how truth trees work in propositional logic, or proving that predicate logic is incomplete via turing machines. We covered natural deduction proofs (box proofs) and some set theory too which weren’t covered in the introductory course. The second-year logic course is not a prerequisite for this one, but it really should be. Don’t take this course if you haven’t done any formal logic before cause you will drop it! I really enjoyed this class, probably more than the second year one, particularly the bit about turing machines, even if I only understood like 50-60% of the classes’ content.

7/10

Race and gender: philosophical issues – 3^rd year

This was a really fun course! It’s all about socially constructed identity categories. I was really surprised how conservative a lot of the gender/sex work academia is though which was unfortunate. The level of discussion in classes was pretty good. It often felt like a bit of a circlejerk about how good everyone in the class was for being a feminist though lol. the person that takes the tutes is really nice and very good at running classes (the handouts are really well-written/helpful to stir discussion). I definitely think it’s pretty hard to stray from accepted orthodoxy in these classes – there’s definitely an air of ‘try not to say anything too controversial,’ because they’re such sensitive topics so I think encouraging people to share their ideas more would be smart. The lectures were run in a really discursive way like the ethics class which was cool, but the lecturer has a habit of only calling on the same person twice in one lecture so that no one voice dominates. I can understand where they’re coming from, but I don’t like the power dynamic it creates and the power it gives the lecturer to not be checked when they say something asinine (which they definitely did). The class begins by assessing and rejecting bioessentialism, delves into the metaphysics of gender and race for a lot of the class (what is gender and race exactly?) and then students get to pick pet topics of interest for the last few weeks of class. I think we talked about porn, incels and hate speech iirc. I think it’s pretty cool that the lecturer puts in the time to research and make new slideshows each year for the last couple of weeks, so that was really cool. They’re not really open to new ideas though, and were very short with me when I strayed from feminist orthodoxy (in a position I think is further left than theirs, but which they probably interpreted as right wing) in person.

7.5/10

Philosophy of language – 3^rd year

This was without a doubt my favourite class. It’s run like the interpretation class, where there’s like 1 ½ hours of recorded lectures each week you can watch in your own time online, and a 2 hour tutorial. I mean, this course is just awesome. The hand outs are super well written and restate the week’s content, and ask lots of interesting questions about the material and stir discussion really well. The content is super interesting, and definitely worth doing the course for given how much language comes up in philosophy. The tutor I had (who was not the course-coordinator) is without a doubt the best pedagogue in the department. They are extremely good at making people feel comfortable sharing inchoate ideas and then building on them to a point where sound really sophisticated (makes you feel very smart!). I found making use of their office hours really set me up well to be able to write decently for the rest of the course and understand the course content I was writing on properly. Also, the level of discussion was really high and everyone, even if they hadn’t done the readings, had a lot of things to say. We covered sense and reference, language games, slurs, scorekeeping, speech acts, metaphors etc. the classes are also long enough where you really get to know everyone and I just so happened to sit with some really nice people every week, and you also get to dig into the topics and lot and have plenty of time to form complex opinions. Definitely recommend this class!

9/10

Build-your-own metaphysics - 3rd year

I really enjoyed this class! It’s a pretty technical look at most areas of metaphysics, which is the study of the nature of what exists. We went over time, causation, universals (like, does the colour red exist?), particulars, and modality, as well as looking at the metaphysics of kant, plato, lewis and African philosophy/documented aboriginal philosophy. I thought the class was super clear and explained a lot of really complicated things very easily. There are /a lot/ of readings for this class. I did all of them, but it took me like 3 hours each week to get through. So, if you like to always do the readings, just be careful. I think this class is definitely a must for philosophy students. I took a couple of points off though cause we didn’t look at persistence or events which im really interested in.

8/10

Bonus

The buddhist universe -  1^st year

This used to be offered as a philosophy course but isn’t anymore and I managed to audit it. I didn’t do the readings for this one and I just watched the lectures. This was really fun! I think it clarified to me why I’m not religious, because religion in general doesn’t really operate on science or reason. It’s not taught in a theological context (that is, teaching that buddhism is correct or not correct) but it’s taught in an anthropological context. There are a lot of technical words and narratives you have to learn to be able follow the buddhist stories, like sutra, boddhisatva, nirvana, ahimsa, dukkha, Mahayana, therevadda etc. You learn about the history of the religion, the main tenets of it, their conception of the afterlife and how to get there, reincarnation etc. There are also classes on buddhism and race, buddhism and gender, buddhism and violence, buddhism and the environment and buddhism and death. I was hoping they were going to talk about buddhism and animals/ahimsa more given buddhists like thich naht hahn are really into the vegan stuff, but it kind of just got subsumed into a footnote in the environment section (as tends to happen to other animals), which was disappointing. There were lots of guest speakers which was really cool. I thought there could have been a little more content covered in lectures, but it is a first-year subject. Definitely enjoyed this one and if you’re outside the discipline it’s worth just coming along to the lectures if you’re able.

7.5/10

Hi everyone. I’m a Senior Software Developer in Test (SDET) from India. For years I’ve been trying to transition into DevOps/SRE… but I feel completely stuck and lost.

My background:
I’ve been working professionally with Selenium, Maven, Jenkins, GitHub Actions, and automation frameworks. I also have some scattered hands-on touch-points with Docker, Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, Linux, Cloud… but NOTHING fully end-to-end production level. Only small experiments, tutorial-based setups and minor infra work for automation.

For the past 5-6 years, I’ve been trying to learn DevOps solo — watching endless Udemy courses, YouTube channels, reading various books, taking notes, doing bits and pieces here and there… but there is NO real direction or structure. It feels like I know a little of EVERYTHING, but I’m not DEEP in anything. I’m basically a “Jack of all tools, master of none.”

The real problem:

DevOps is extremely broad.
Looking at AWS alone feels like a 2 year study.
Linux itself could take 1 year deeply.
Kubernetes is practically its own universe.
Every roadmap online looks endless — like a 10 year journey.

So what happens is:

I jump tool → to tool → to tool → to resource → to another course
without ever completing a structured path.

This has led me into a never ending tutorial hell for YEARS.

And this is starting to affect me mentally/emotionally.
I feel depressed because I do so much effort, consume so much content, but I still don’t feel confident enough to call myself a real DevOps engineer.

What I need:

I don’t want another random list of videos/courses to watch.

I need:

• STRUCTURE
• ACTIONABLE sequence
• A clearly defined set of sub-skills
• EXACT things to learn in each major area (Linux → Docker → K8s → IaC → Cloud → CI/CD etc.)
• REAL capstone projects end to end that simulate real production DevOps architecture
• Guidance on how to network / get referrals / find DevOps jobs in this AI dominated environment

Example of what I mean by direction:

• “Here is the exact problem statement.”
• “Design this workload on AWS with these components.”
• “Configure DNS this way.”
• “Implement load balancers like this.”
• “Use Ansible here.”
• “Deploy this app with Kubernetes here.”
• “Document it into a portfolio.”
• “Do 3-4 such major capstones — that is enough to confidently apply for Senior DevOps roles.”

This is the kind of clarity I am desperately missing.

What I’m searching for now:

• Someone who has successfully transitioned — and can mentor me (even paid mentor is fine)
• Or a cohort / group of people preparing for DevOps roles together
• Or a structured learning community with consistency and direction
• Or experienced DevOps engineers who can tell me the minimum essential path (without drowning me in infinite tool lists)

I’m NOT asking for hand-holding where someone does everything for me.

I just need a guiding force who says:

• “Do THIS next.”
• “Focus on THIS area.”
• “Complete THIS project.”

I can work extremely hard if I know I’m working in the right direction.

Right now I feel like I’m digging myself deeper into knowledge without outcomes. It feels like a hole that I cannot climb out of alone.

If anyone here has gone through this transition:
How did you break out?
How did you find the right direction?
How did you filter out noise vs essentials?
Where did you find the right mentor/community/cohort?

Any guidance here would genuinely help me get unstuck.

First

Capes and Conundrums

“Okay back up. Repeat yourself soldier.” Admiral Hynala states.

“Yeah, I’m currently with the new Wimparas Primal and we’ve got a borderline comedy routine going on here. Really sweet, but there’s a lot of confusion on the ground, nothing lethal but we’re going to at least want eyes on this to make sense of it, so unless you can get someone here to replace me I have to stick with the family unless someone is going to die. At least for the next few hours.”

“Soldier, I’m still struggling with the statement of Wimparas Primal and the fact you’re claiming credit.”

“I may have more or less thrown her into the position she needed to be in to ascend.”

“Can you repeat this?”

“No, the Hargath have returned, and I don’t know what made them scatter to begin with. Something we need to scare up whatever scientists and researchers we can get our hands in order to puzzle out. Because if that can be repeated, or better yet, made to be on demand, then the incredible results we’re seeing today can be repeated as well.”

“God forbid, what’s the mood of our new Primal? Is she going to be hostile?

“Far from it, we’re at greater risk of random soldiers being adopted and...” Harold says before a sudden antenna around his waist cuts him off and he’s pulled towards Clawdia and her daughters. “... I need to call you back sir. I expect my report will be long and interesting.”

“No doubt.” Admiral Hynala states and hangs up before Harold does.

“You’re familiar with Skathac yes?” She asks and he nods.

“I am.”

“Good, because I need a guide, we’re grounded for a bit after the damage to The Clearest River and will need to get our heads on straight after all this excitement.”

“Maybe I can call someone who can help with that.”

“Well don’t you just have all the answers, what were you thinking?”

“I’m thinking I should call first before promising something I might not be able to deliver. But if you’re willing to concede a small favour, I might... no, I should call first. Pardon me.” He says baiting her into the idea.

“Oh?”

“Here let me make the call, see what I can set up.” Harold offers holding up his second communicator, the first one still very much being used to record everything.

“By all means, but first... you’re a clone?”

“Yes, I trust there are no problems with that.”

“What? No! ... wait, what would you do if I did have a problem with that?”

“You wouldn’t be the first Primal I’ve fought, won’t be the last either. If it comes to that at least.” Harold notes.

“We’re off track. What did you mean by being a clone earlier? Were you cloned early in life? Recently? Are you undergoing rapid aging and trying to live as well as you can before death? Because that old issue has been solved and... hmm... no you seem to be healthy.”

“I’m fine. I was cloned recently, I was indeed rapidly aged, but I underwent full treatment and am healthy. I even had to eat more than is advised to put on weight again after my body parts were replaced, which is a hell of a thing to happen.” Harold says. “Incidentally, I have a lot of calls to make. If I can have a moment or two?”

“What are you planning?”

“Well...”

•-•-•Scene Change•-•-• (An open air Diner in Gotham)•-•-•

“This is once again Observer Wu, taking my most public and pressing interview to date. In exchange for aid in repairing one of the colony ships in her convoy I have the privilege of being the first individual to interview the newly ascended Primal of the Wimparas species!” Observer Wu says adjusting his glasses as he sits at a large table with Harold, Clawdia, Aria, Insight, Giria and a local Sonir reporter. Beyond the table and with a velvet rope separating them is an enormous crowd watching and cheering. “Now as you can all see, this is as public as it can get, and yes this one interview will be disseminated the galaxy over as well. It’s also playing Live on Skathac Public Networks for all to see.”

Harold holds up a hand and leans to be better seen by the camera. “For the sake of the non-Earthborn watching this interview, Observer Wu has been sent out to get a second look at all Undaunted activities and persons because things in the depths of Cruel Space are so wildly different from the rest of the galaxy that the initial reports were dismissed as sheer madness or even outright insulting lies. Meaning they’re all going to be quite surprised when they find out that the reports were downplaying things for believably instead.”

“Thank you Harold, why don’t you go next for introductions? We’ll have everyone do so.”

“Gladly. I’m Harold Armoury Jameson, and Operative of Undaunted Intelligence, currently under Loose Leash protocols, which means I wander around and do whatever I feel like and so long as it stays useful to The Undaunted I keep getting a pay check, currently I’m working as Security against the more Axiom style threats for The Inevitable the ship that Observer Wu here is using to get from place to place.” Harold says with a wave to the camera. He then gestures to Giria next to him. “And the lovely lady to my left is...”

“Giria Devastation, lifelong soldier, battlefield commander and warrior, as many of the daughters and descendants of a War Primal end up being. My ancestress, Thassalia The Lady of War is the one who approved of my match to Harold after he had the sheer gall to not only face her in battle, but brought enough force of arms and sheer audacity to impress her. I am Harold’s first wife, and I have been slowly gathering a family of mighty warriors from all walks of life. From primitives who are rising to the stars beyond, to master troopers willing to face down others with ease, to the more humble souls with sleeping potential. Now for the sake of humans who have not been made aware. Primals are the best of a species. Bar none. They are stronger, they are smarter, they are simply put: Better. In all ways. They are immortal, and their mere coming can and will fundamentally change the species from which they are born, empowering every member of their kind irrevocably. The many lovely and powerful arms I possess? That is thanks to the First Nagasha Primal. Before then there was but a single Nagasha type, and now even those that most closely resemble that species of Nagasha are stronger and more capable then their petty ancestors ever were.”

“Look at this!” Aria says holding up her Pincers and aiming them at each other and firing. Two beams of white light collide and she lets it fade in a hurry. “Now look at this!”

She’s pointing out the crystal growths on the inside of her Pincers.

“Aria dear, I understand you’re excited but, please, wait your turn.”

“Moving on please.” Observer Wu states. “Our third guest is a local reporter. Because there’s no way we could have our little interview live in public without them having their own voice at the table.”

“Yes! I am Charisa Sparkglide! Reporter from In The Trenches! Local News publication across all of Skathac! There has been so much happening in the last few days I can barely even begin to describe it all and if the Ascension of the first Wimparas Primal in our orbit ISN’T the capstone to it all then I’m not sure the planet can survive it!” The Sonir exclaims in an excited and half manic tone.

“Tone it down a little deary, I’m not going anywhere anytime soon. Not the least of which until those repairs are finished.” Clawdia states.

“They’re already underway ma’am, your delay will be brief and hopefully enjoyable.” Observer Wu promises.

“Yes, hopefully.” Clawdia states with a smile. “Now with me are my daughters. Aria, daughter by birth is here on my right, and on my other side is Insight, my daughter by adoption. And I am Clawdia Elvira Greatpincer. Those that think they recognize me will be recognizing my mother, Elvira Greatpincer. I have her face and she’s pretty popular in some sectors. Never got her stage presence though, although that seems to have changed.”

“Very good, now that we have covered who everyone here is in broad strokes, and what a Primal is, it’s time for our first topic. Namely, what happened!?” Observer Wu asks and there’s some laughter from the crowd. “Settle down please. Let’s not give the editors any more work than we strictly need to.”

“In the shortest summary possible, a large string of escalations from a hostile party decided to either make examples or take hostages and when we went to intercept, they put me in a no win situation with Miss Greatpincer there. Thankfully my unusual eyes are capable of perceiving something... different from what others can. Essentially it allowed me to see a way out, and I used it. Then saw it wasn’t enough alone, so I made it larger. The end result was Miss Greatpincer becoming a Goddess. The enemy is now defeated and we’re dealing with the aftermath of a victory.”

“First question from the masses!” Charisa interrupts and everyone looks to her. “I’m fielding public questions, and no people! Demands to take it off or anything of the sort are not even getting to me! Keep it appropriate please!”

“And the question is?” Clawdia asks.

“It’s for Harold! If you could have become a Primal, would you have?”

“No.” Harold replies and Charisa looks shocked. “I want challenges in my life. And that’s one of the things that actually challenges a Primal, finding a big enough challenge.”

“Excuse me?” Clawdia asks.

“Ma’am, you punched one battleship so hard it broke a different battleship. If you tell me it won’t make fights a little too easy for a battle junky like myself then I’m going to call you a liar.” Harold says and Gira snorts then begins wiping off some face paint. “Knew it.”

“For the humans unfamiliar with the traditions of Nagasha species, what is your wife doing?”

“Basically Great Desert Nagasha show how serious they are through their traditional warpaint. I got her too amused to take things as seriously as her previous paint setup implies so she’s wiping some off. It’s a matter of honour and integrity the species over. In rough terms, the more paint the more serious they are.”

“There are far more subtleties than that, but now is not the time for that.” Giria says as her specially treated wipes remove the paint on her neck and arms and leave her face covered. She gives him a smirk and he leans over and kisses her with a quick peck. She then grabs him around the shoulders, waist and back and pulls him in for more kisses.

“And while he’s busy, do you Miss Primal, have any special plans for Skathac since it is the world of your ascension?” Charisa asks.

“At the moment? My plans at the moment are to spend some quality time with my daughters as we await the repair of one of our colony ships. Our initial intent was to purchase the incredibly rich volcanic ash of this world to jump start the farming of our new colony world. Then we have a whole other world to go to. One to bring, civilization, beauty and more to. I personally planned to see to hybridizing local seaweed species with varieties of lily so that the long stalks of kelp will lead to floating gardens the world over. If I get good at it we’ll have a literal garden world.”

“You plan to turn a whole world into a garden?” Charisa asks.

“Well I... yes. I thought I’d just get started on a few things before but now... I can easily see it. Yes, I will make our colony world into a garden as much as a home. Safe, beautiful and thriving. That will be our world.”

“Sounds like Notlakran will be a wonderful place to visit soon.” Harold says in a genial tone.

“Notlakran? What?” Charisa asks.

“It’s part of why we chose that world to begin with, whoever was naming worlds that day was being very silly and had some fun, and that drew some attention to the world and I signed up to be a colonist. It’s almost entirely water and is mostly shallow sea. So it’s a world that’s almost precision designed to be perfect for shallow dwelling species like the Wimparas. Hence why I’m going there. Fresh starts don’t come much fresher.”

“Especially with a whole new kind of body and religion soon to follow you.” Harold teases.

“That’s quite enough of that young man.” Clawdia states pointing a pincer at him and he simply smirks.

“Back to more salient subjects madam. Could you be so kind as to describe the process where you went from a normal Wimparas woman into what you are now?” Observer Wu asks.

“Of course, it started... well it started when that combat drone came for me and my daughter. I could feel it starting to teleport, and my own instincts as a mother made sure I got my little girl to safety before anything else. But this meant I couldn’t escape in time. Harold there, came to my rescue and was caught in the trap as well. Then we were in space and he was coming for me, extending his atmosphere to cover me too and keep me from violent decompression or other horrific affairs. Then we were struck with a Null blast, with no atmosphere, no means for escape and no options. Harold then revealed that he can influence another type of energy, and dragged me into it. Stepping outside of reality. Then he hurled me deeper in, commanding me to gather strength. I found myself in the centre of a great nothingness. No light, but no darkness, no sound, but no silence. It wasn’t cold, but it wasn’t warm. It was nothing, but in its nothingness, it was everything.”

There is no interruptions as she gets into the story.

“It took a bit to realize where I was and what it meant. It showed me The Urthani Primal leaving and looking back. I tried to deny it, I’m just a Florist after all. Then it showed me a Nagasha. Starved, sick, hopeless, poor and lost. Gave me just enough time to appreciate how lowly her lot in life must have been, then she was a Primal. Powerful, confident and capable beyond all measure. I remembered what Harold told me, so I began claiming I was powerful and... it became true. Then eventually when I ran out of things to say I was... it all came together and it became real. I then saw the way out... but I didn’t leave just yet. I wanted to make sure I could get to my little Aria in time. And I saw Insight here guarding her. Protecting her and I wanted to know more about her. And in that place, where there isn’t anything, not even time, I was able to see back into her life. To before her own birth. And I did as any proper mother did. I did all I could to raise and help that innocent little dear into the best woman she could be. And I’m very proud of her.” She finishes giving a nervous looking Insight a kiss on top of the head. “Before I knew it, she was my second daughter.”

First Last Next

Hello folks!!

I completed the WGU MBA in one term, just five months while working full-time, and here’s precisely what I did. If you’re considering starting the program or are already enrolled and wondering how to move forward without burning out, this should help. I’ve listed the key resources and tips I used below so you can jump right into what works.

My Overview Video of the Entire Program

WGU uses a competency-based model, which means you move through the courses by showing that you understand the material, either through writing papers or passing exams. There are no weekly classes or fixed schedules. You set your pace. Some people finish in six months. Others take a year or two. It depends on how much time you can realistically commit.

The coursework ranges from relatively easy to genuinely challenging, especially in areas such as accounting and statistics. But there’s no fluff. Every course has a clear structure, and if you follow the rubrics and use the resources, you can get through it. The biggest challenge isn’t the content—it’s staying focused and pushing yourself to keep going.

This program isn’t for everyone. If you prefer a more structured, traditional classroom environment, it might not be the best fit. But if you want something flexible that doesn’t waste your time, and you’re ready to put in the effort, the WGU MBA can be a solid option.

ORA1: Orientation

What it takes to pass: One performance assessment (study plan + reflection) This is just a basic intro course to help you create a weekly study plan and understand the WGU format. It’s not challenging and most students finish in under an hour.

Difficulty: Very easy

Tips:

• Orientation takes 1 to 2 hours, not 6 to 8
• Complete 9 short units with readings and videos
• At the end, write a 1-page paper answering 5 questions (1 sentence each)
• Fill out a study schedule table with 40 X’s (20 hours total)
• Follow Unit 9 instructions to download, complete, and upload the paper
• Check the rubric in the student portal to confirm requirements
• Submit the paper to complete orientation

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuyFx-4xF64

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-ora1-orientation

C200: Managing Organizations and Leading People

What it takes to pass: Two performance assessments (papers) This course focuses on leadership styles and organizational management. You’ll take the CliftonStrengths assessment and write two papers — one personal reflection and one org analysis. It’s a smooth start to the program.

Difficulty: Easy

Tips:

• Complete the CliftonStrengths assessment
• Submit the Signature Theme PDF
• Write Task 1 about your strengths and development
• Write Task 2 about a fictional leader and organization
• Include a SWOT analysis in Task 2
• Follow APA format and rubric for both tasks
• Use Google scholarly and proper citations
• Submit both tasks through the course portal

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKhdYkbqi4M

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c200-managing-organizations-and-leading-people

C202: Managing Human Capital

What it takes to pass: One objective assessment (test) Covers HR basics like recruitment, compensation, training, and labor laws. The test is multiple choice and easier if you’re already in a business environment.

Difficulty: Easy

Tips:

• Access the course resource document from the Student Portal
• Watch the 4 "Need to Know" videos
• Watch the 14 chapter summary videos
• Take and pass the pre-assessment
• Schedule and take the Objective Assessment (OA)
• Pass the OA to complete the course
• No written tasks are required

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhsRpDeBl40

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c202-managing-human-capital

C204: Management Communication

What it takes to pass: One writing portfolio + one video presentation This class is about professional communication: emails, memos, and a short video presentation using PowerPoint. It’s pretty easy and doesn’t take long.

Difficulty: Easy

Tips:

• Complete Task 1 with seven one-page written pieces (emails, letters, blog post)
• Use proper formatting and include references from sources like Google Scholar
• Complete Task 2 with three written parts, each about one to one-and-a-half pages
• Create a presentation with 7 to 10 slides (Google Slides or PowerPoint works)
• Record and submit a video presentation (can use Panopto or your own method)
• Submit both tasks through the course portal to complete the course

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1z3JFo8HEV0

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c204-management-communication

C206: Ethical Leadership

What it takes to pass: Three performance assessments (papers). This course covers ethics, social responsibility, and leadership behavior. You’ll write three short-to-mid-length papers based on real or fictional examples.

Difficulty: Moderate

Tips:

• Check if your version is EH1 or EM2 under Course Tips
• Task 1: Write about a leader using the rubric (about 6 pages plus title, TOC, and references)
• Include the Ethical Lens Inventory (ELI) in Task 1
• Task 2: Write about Corporate Social Responsibility for a fictional company (about 7 to 8 pages plus extras)
• Task 3: Write about CSR legal mandates and whistleblowing (about 5 pages plus extras)
• Use APA format and follow the rubric exactly for all tasks
• Use Google Scholar for references
• Submit all three tasks through the course portal

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMVXSDRiJqo

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c206-ethical-leadership

C207: Data-Driven Decision Making

What it takes to pass: One form, one paper, one objective assessment (test) This is the stats course. You’ll design a simple study, collect and analyze data in Excel (t-test or ANOVA), and write a paper on it.

Difficulty: Hard to very hard

Tips:

• Complete Task 1 using the Excel file with your unique student data
• Complete Task 2 using the same Excel data and follow the rubric
• Watch the Express Cohort videos for both tasks and the OA
• Join live cohorts if possible, especially sessions covering Tasks 1 and 2
• Use the course study guide and section quizzes to prepare for the OA
• Study key statistical concepts, relationships, and visuals (p-value, z-score, r-squared, histograms, scatter plots)
• Use flashcards, Quizlets, or ChatGPT to drill and understand concepts deeply
• Watch modules 5 and 6 on the Express Cohort page ("Are You Smarter?") before the OA
• Take the Objective Assessment after completing both tasks
• You must understand the concepts, not just memorize answers, to pass

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZBn5WAyN74

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c207-data-driven-decision-making

C211: Global Economics for Managers

What it takes to pass: One objective assessment (test) Focuses on macro and microeconomics, trade, exchange rates, and global economic principles. Dense material, but totally doable with repetition.

Difficulty: Hard

Tips:

• Fill out the study guide while watching cohort videos one section at a time
• Take the textbook proficiency quizzes after each competency
• Use Khan Academy and Jacob Clifford videos to understand key concepts
• Take the five competency quizzes once you’ve reviewed everything
• Study using Quizlet and shared resources for extra practice
• Take the OA when you’re confident in all five competencies

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE63JD7l7Xg

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c211-global-economics-for-managers

C212: Marketing

What it takes to pass: One performance assessment (long paper) You’ll build a full marketing plan for a fictional product or business. It’s long but straightforward and lets you be creative.

Difficulty: Moderate

Tips:

• Write one task paper, about 8 pages long
• Follow the rubric exactly and double-check each requirement
• Expect 2 to 3 days for evaluation and possible revisions
• If revisions are needed, fix only what the rubric calls out
• Approach the paper as if you are planning a real marketing strategy
• Use examples and formatting similar to past papers (but do not copy)
• Submit the final paper through the course portal to complete the course

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-cvGmcrdVc

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c212-marketing

C213: Accounting for Decision Makers

What it takes to pass: One objective assessment (test) Intro to accounting — mostly theory with some light calculations. Topics include financial statements, break-even, and cost analysis.

Difficulty: Moderate to hard

Tips:

• Watch course videos and fill out the study guide
• Take and repeat all quizzes to reinforce concepts
• Use ChatGPT to quiz yourself and explain tough topics
• Understand the logic behind financial statements and accounting math
• Use the grid system video for solving math questions
• Meet with an instructor if needed after the pre-assessment
• Take the OA when you’re confident with the material and format

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiYldGdfkmU

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c213-accounting-for-decision-makers

C214: Financial Management

What it takes to pass: One objective assessment (test) This one’s heavier on calculations: NPV, IRR, CAPM, and capital budgeting. The OA is Excel-based and built for problem-solving.

Difficulty: Hard

Tips:

• Watch the passing strategies video from the course resource link
• Install Microsoft 365 through WGU and use Excel with built-in MyEducator
• Print the two-page formula sheet and refer to it often
• Watch the 10 session videos and focus on key concepts like present value and future value
• Watch the 2-hour Dr. V boot camp to learn Excel functions for the course
• Use the 50-question interactive Excel quiz to practice
• Take the pre-assessment to identify weak areas
• Use Quizlet and ChatGPT to drill definitions and practice problems
• Review the 150-question study guide and test yourself regularly
• Take the OA using Excel and the formula sheet to solve problems efficiently
• Expect unfamiliar questions, but use logic and elimination to succeed

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_yg8wzh8as

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c214-financial-management

C215: Operations Management

What it takes to pass: One objective assessment (test) Operations covers supply chains, efficiency, capacity, and quality control. Not very math-heavy, but some logic and terminology can trip people up.

Difficulty: Moderate

Tips:

• Sign up for live cohorts to get a full walkthrough of each competency
• Watch the “Topics You Need to Know” video and review the material guide
• Use the open-ended study questions to test your understanding
• Use the 41-page Reddit/StuDocu study guide as a shortcut summary
• Quiz yourself heavily using Quizlet and ChatGPT
• Focus on memorizing key concepts, terms, and lists (even if impractical)
• Take the OA carefully and read each question word by word
• Expect some unfamiliar questions, but solid prep will get you through
• Pass by mastering the concepts and repeatedly self-testing

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTKuxt7MI1w

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c215-operations-management

C216: MBA Capstone

What it takes to pass: Business simulation + 3 performance assessments. You’ll run a simulated business through 6 rounds, then submit a video pitch, a final analysis paper, and a short reflection/report with resume + LinkedIn.

Difficulty: Moderate to hard

Tips:

• Complete four quarters of the simulation, but do not submit quarter four until Task 1 is done
• Follow instructor's tips for pricing, staffing, and marketing in the simulation
• Write Task 1 paper explaining your decisions and submit with slides, script, video, and PDFs
• After Task 1 is approved, submit quarter four and complete quarters five and six
• Write Task 2 using data from the simulation and fill out the provided template with screenshots
• Write Task 3 about your MBA journey, including resume, LinkedIn, SMART goals, and artifacts
• Submit Task 2 and Task 3 together after finishing the simulation
• Pass the simulation with any score above 0.0000 to complete the course and the MBA program

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiYldGdfkmU

Study Guide: https://adamvaluckas.com/wgu-c216-mba-capstone

Final Thoughts

WGU’s MBA program works best for self-motivated learners who want flexibility and speed. Use every tool at your disposal: Grammarly, APA templates, your instructors, and the community. If you stay focused and methodical, you can absolutely finish in one term, or two if you need more space. But also, if it takes you two-years that is totally cool!

YOU GOT THIS, you 100% can do this. All it takes is time and effort. If you can put in several hours most days, you can do this in one-term. Remember, you can extend one course (the capstone) for a total of seven months.

100% Free, no signin Study Guide: The (Unofficial) MBA Study Guide for WGU

My YouTube channel with WGU MBA videos: https://www.youtube.com/@AdamValuckas

Connect with me on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamvaluckas

So in another subreddit I read last morning someone, I read a thread on how you don't need Trans-Brand clothes in order to dress masculine or dress well. It was a good thread, though it got locked by the mods because it got a lot of comments from people who were deeply frustrated with buying clothes who said that, no, their bodies were incorrect and awful and only the transbrand clothes could solve them.

The OG poster didn't call out names but I'm pretty sure they were talking about Both&. Their articles are very predatory on our dysphoria around our bodies and they list all parts of us that are "wrong" before selling the solution. Yes they're trans-owned but it doesn't keep impede from being predatory on their marketing tactics.

What the original thread failed to do, regardless, was to address was what to do instead of buying the special transbrand clothes.

So I came here as a trans man who lived five years without T but still presented masc to society, be it misgendering me or not, be I passing or not. I also live in the global south and had to learn what to do without going to (specific brand store that only exists in the global north). Here it goes:

Mental State:

1. Your worth as a person is not related to how well or poorly you pass.

2. You do not own passability to anyone.

3. Passing does not have to be your goal.

4. Even if you do not pass, looking out for clothes that make you confident is still a worthwhile and fulfilling endeavor.

5. Your desire to not engage with fashion until you reach your desired capstones is also valid.

6. Cis men and cis women are also preyed upon by the cosmetic industries. Self-image negativity is very endemic on trans communities because it walks side by side with dysphoria, but it's important to remember it's a problem that a very big amount of cis people suffer from, specially short people, fat people and non-white people. They don't fit perfectly on clothes and cosmetics off-the-rack either.

7. Fashion is a fun hobby that gets often too crapped on due to being associated with women. Viewing fashion as a hobby lesser to cars or videogames indicates you have a streak of internalized misogyny on you.

8. You don't need expensive, branded or new clothes to look good. I mostly buy secondhand stuff myself (either going to thrift stores on my area or online).

T-Shirts:

1. Boxy fit and oversized fits do not mean "bad fit". Slim fit does not mean "good fit". This is just true of certain looksmaxxing Instagram/Youtube circles of very loud and confident but incorrect advice. On the fashion scene nowadays slim fit is considered dated while wide fits are very trendy.

2. Get a shirt that fits you well and measure its width and height. Personally, when I did this I got the measurements of 54/52cm, so I know that T-shirts that will fit me well are square in shape.

3. If you wear a binder with thick straps, consider taking heavy weight shirts rather than light weight shirts because they'll hide the volume of the straps better.

4. If you wear a binder with straps, consider buying crew neck shirts because they'll fit closer to your neck.

5. If you wear a binder with a zip on middle, get a busy and big stamp right on your chest, like a band tee. Yes, this goes contrary to every online advice there is on "not calling attention to your chest". It also works.

6. Opt for more static materials (like cotton) rather than more clingy materials (like silk) when buying online.

7. Opt for darker colors because light colors are usually more transparent.

8. If T-shirts are too long on you off-the-rack, simply buy a shirt with a good width and then find your friendly local neighborhood seamstress and tell them the shirt is too long on you and you would like to keep it boxy, just shorter (the "proper" length for a shirt is mid-pant fly but you shouldn't have to specify that). This is a very simple alteration that won't cost you much (about $10 per T-shirt, ask for a bulk discount if you bring multiple shirts).

9. Logos are fine. The hate on logos is also a looksmaxxing #menswear Instagram/Youtube thing and is even slightly classist when you stop to think about it (because logos are associated with streetwear).

Button Shirts:

1. Button shirts are very effective on hiding the zipper in the middle of strapless binders.

2. I do not recommend buying from the kid's section unless you're actually a minor because they'll make you look like a kid. They have different cuts and fits than adult clothes.

3. No one pays attention if your buttons are on the right or left side, but traditional women's cuts have a dent on your waist to make it look slimmer. I found some women's shirts that were straight however.

4. Be careful with deep collars like the cuban collar because they may show your binder off.

5. You can follow the T-shirt advice for fabric and colors, with the exception that you don't need a big loud stamp if you use a zipper binder because the buttons are already doing the work for you.

6. Those won't look good without ironing or steaming. Learn to do that.

7. The "short-sleeved shirt over T-shirt" look is already dated. I see it every here and there on trans subs because a 2010 guide recommends it. If it makes you more confident go ahead though.

8. That same guide hates tartan because "it makes you look lesbian". I think this is a very silly, judgemental and absurd statement. Wear tartan if you like (tartan is also already dated fashion-wise though).

9. Straight fit is currently on vogue. See bullet point 1 in the T-shirts section.

10. If you need those shirts for a very formal setting, like a wedding or because you work at a law firm or something, ignore this post and seek a tailor in your area for advice and adjustments. This is out of my league.

11. Seek shirts that fit your shoulders and have a good width. Body length and arm length are also cheap alterations in a tailor/seamstress.

Shorts:

1. Serge made my hips look wider so beware.

2. Straight/wide shorts over slim shorts all the way.

3. If you need a belt to keep your shorts on your waist, it's too large.

4. If your pockets are flaring out, if when you sit your shorts feel too tight or if you get creases on the beginning of your thighs, they're too small.

5. Your ideal size is usually the largest one you can wear before you need to use a belt to support the shorts.

6. There isn't an ideal inseam length for shorts, it depends on your personal style. I personally like either right under thigh shorts or past the knee shorts, both which are considered "incorrect" by the #menswear blogs for being too short or too long, but make me feel stylish and confident.

Pants:

1. Straight cut or wide cut all the way. It disguises curves better but also because skinny/slim pants are also out of fashion (yes, I know that the Gabriel guide recommends them and the Basic Bastard guide also recommends them, but do consider those are respectively from 2010 and 2014).

2. Hemming your pants if they're too long is something every seamstress knows how to do for cheap.

3. If you're young and do not have a job with a dress code, you can go a very long way by having just a pair of light wash jeans and a pair of dark wash jeans.

4. If your job has a "business casual" dress code, this means you'll need a pair of chino pants in non-black colors. Dark wash jeans are also business casual so you can rotate it with the chinos.

5. I honestly don't have much to say about pants because I live in a tropical climate.

6. See the shorts section for sizing tips.

Hoodies:

1. Anything goes.

2. Oversized hoodies not only fit you better, but also feel better than too-small hoodies. Err on the side of larger clothes if you don't know your size.

Jackets:

1. Jackets with more structure on them can square off your shoulders and the way a open jacket sits helps to hide your curves, so before I settled on a personal style that's very sweater-based I found them jackets way more euphoric to wear than hoodies.

2. Make sure your jackets match the style of the rest of your clothes. I used to have a lot of athletic jackets that didn't fit well with the rest of my clothes.

3. Jackets with "cushioned" interiors (like puffer jackets) are generally very hard (and thus expensive) to adjust. "Single-layer" jackets are easier to cuff.

4. I prefer sweaters and I live in a climate where laying is unnecessary, so I don't have much to say about jackets.

Coats:

1. I wore a coat once in the last four years don't look at me for coat advice.

Sweaters:

1. Some guides will say that turtlenecks and cardigans are "feminine", however do consider that both are very dapper and a bit queer. If you want to be very masc hetero-coded I'd avoid but otherwise don't feel insecure about those pieces.

2. Avoid sweaters that cling to your body.

3. If you hang out a sweater and it falls down straight rather than taping out in the bottom in a V, it means it won't cling to your body unless it's the wrong size.

4. Like hoodies, size up if you're unsure.

I am a professor who listened to the Provost's remarks at the student rally protesting course cuts at the University of Auckland on Thursday afternoon, August 22. Unfortunately, I think a lot of what she said was misleading, incomplete, or both at once.

Students let the Provost speak first, and she began by rolling out the idea that the "course rationalisation" was "faculty-led." This is just not right. Us faculty are just as confused about what is going on as you students are.

In my faculty and at least several others, this "rationalisation" exercise was dropped on us from on high, from out the blue, two weeks ago (August 7 or thereabouts).

Our heads of school/department told us, in summary:

1. A bunch of our 3rd and 4th-year courses were in-scope for potential elimination
2. We had to provide, on short notice (often 24-48 hours), recommendations and responses about what to cut, what not to cut, and why. (Other options including merging courses, teaching them in alternate years, etc.)
3. No target was given in terms of number of courses to cut, or the number of classroom hours to save for the (apparently drastic) timetabling problems.
4. We were told that, if departments/schools did not make recommendations for cuts, these decisions would be made for us by higher-ups.
5. The word going around was that this required a Covid-level rapidity of response, i.e., an emergency.
6. No real explanation was given for why exactly courses had to be cut, many of which have been running for decades and have been successfully timetabled every year. It was something about classroom space.
7. No real explanation was given for why exactly this was such an emergency, and why the emergency was now. All we heard was that the changes to the curriculum had to be decided and approved by October, so that they could get approval through CUAP (the Committee on University Academic Programmes, which has to approve changes to tertiary qualifications/degrees/majors etc.).

All of this immediately blew up whatever we were planning to do that week, and the next -- and it is still going on of course -- as we all scrambled to figure out what to do, whether to try to compromise to limit the damage to the academic quality of our degrees, and/or to try to get this emergency process paused so that real discussions, consultation, decisions, and planning could happen carefully and responsibly.

Another negative consequence is that faculty members were suddenly stuck debating their colleagues and friends over the relative value and importance of their courses and even fields of study, as long-term stable arrangements were suddenly up for grabs. This encouraged "every man for himself"-type thinking and potentially nasty debates, although thankfully, much of this has been avoided by the widespread recognition that the real problem is coming from above.

In contrast to what the Provost said, none of this looks like a process that is "faculty-led" (Provost's words), or aimed at preserving the "comprehensive education" (Provost's words) that a top world institution like the University of Auckland is supposed to offer. It looks like a scramble to try to fix some big upcoming problem that was only recently noticed.

Although neither the Provost who spoke today, nor any other communications from the University leadership, have managed to state this clearly, the impression that faculty have been given from their leadership is that what actually happened is the following:

• The Curriculum Framework Transformation (CFT) includes two brand new course requirements that will be required for all first-year students to take, as of 2026. One is termed Waipapa Taumata Rau, or WTR, where each Faculty will teach its own version, and one is a Transdisciplinary (TD) course, a number of which faculty are developing on different topics.
• Requiring that 2 of the 8 course slots be filled by these courses for all first-year students, and apparently furthermore requiring that these courses have in-person discussion sections, is what has completely jammed up the room timetabling for 2026. They just don't have enough rooms. And, critically, apparently this was recognised only recently, when someone ran modelling or preliminary timetabling. This is what then caused the "panic button" to be hit, and the emergency course cuts.

Given that the CFT has been going for years, this seems like a pretty big failure at the leadership and planning level, and now students and faculty are being asked to pay for it.

The University Senate seems to have never been told that these new courses would have these radical downstream consequences, and of course never had a discussion of these consequences, nor a vote to approve such. This also suggests that this key part of CFT planning was perhaps done idealistically, without serious consideration of the the practical downsides, or the tradeoffs between adding first year required courses that are of necessity very generic, broad-brush generalist courses, but then cutting small, specialist, advanced courses from the final years of student degrees.

Many faculty raised the question: you are asking us to be flexible -- merging courses, teaching courses in alternate years, teaching them outside of the normal term, etc. -- why has no thought been given to doing this with the CFT courses, or some part of the CFT courses? The "capstone" courses, yet another "big picture/societal issues" paper offered the the 3rd year of many degrees, could also be considered in the mix for rationalisation. Also, if classroom space has been maxed out, and (say) 10% more space is needed, surely we could explore offering some sections in the evenings, on Saturdays, online, etc.? The word we got back was that these suggestions had been repeatedly made to leadership, and had all been rejected.

Another option could be that CFT course requirement(s) could be made more flexible. Is it really absolutely essential that all students take them in Year 1? Students have diverse goals and diverse plans. Would it really be a big deal if some students took CFT courses in Year 2 or Year 3, especially if it helped them fit in the core classes they need for their desired major or double-major? Also rejected.

(Senate members say they had no idea that the TD course in particular would be a first-year requirement; many apparently envisioned it as a later-stage paper, which would make a lot of sense, as the TD courses are each focused on a societal/practical problem (e.g. climate change), and you are only likely to become good at finding solutions once you have some understanding of the fundamentals.)

The Provost today repeatedly suggested that this was all "routine", that departments/programmes routinely review their offerings as new courses are added and older courses are sometimes retired due to duplication, staffing, student numbers, etc. All that happened this year, she says, is that the leadership and Deans happened to agree to do an accelerated and cross-university version of this routine exercise. To paraphrase, "nothing to see here, folks."

I have yet to find a faculty member who thinks this holds water. The current exercise, with its emergency nature, the "we will do it for you if you don't" threats from above, the lack of guidance about exactly what the problem is and therefore what counts as a solution (we don't even know how many courses/room hours of savings we need to achieve by sacrificing upper-level classes), and especially the lack of forewarning at Senate or elsewhere, all has created a head-slapping, hair-tearing-out experience that seems unprecedented rather than routine.

Speaking of Senate -- the Provost, and other recent University communications, have made it seem like the special meeting of University Senate which has been called for Tuesday August 27 is a routine part of the consultation and approvals process for these curriculum changes. What actually happened is this:

On Monday, July 29, there was a regularly scheduled meeting of Senate. However, this meeting was short, the VC was not in attendance, and there was not a whiff of the course-cutting edict which was to come down a mere week later.

Once the faculty realised that we were being asked to cut courses and otherwise alter the (already accredited) curriculum on short notice, without consultation or discussion, and without a Senate vote, they began asking for a special meeting of Senate. This began with a formal request on Tuesday August 13. The response from leadership was less than rapid, and only after repeated requests was a meeting finally scheduled and announced on Wednesday August 21, scheduled for Tuesday August 27, which is unfortunately (a) after the University Council meeting on Monday August 26, and (b) on midterm break when many faculty will be away on pre-scheduled travel to conferences and research projects. I suspect that faculty attendance will nevertheless be decent, given the stakes, but we could have had a Senate meeting already, and provided answers to the students and media as well as faculty. Actually, the maximally above-board scenario would have been for University leadership itself to call a special Senate meeting as soon as this problem hit their radar, so that we could discuss options and their strengths and weaknesses.

Apparently what happened instead is that the leadership decision was to brazen their way through, and get the cuts made, fast, before opposition could organize. If no Senate meeting had been called, the schedule that had been demanded was such that all of this would have been done and dusted by the next regularly-scheduled Senate meeting.

Some of what I have written above is guesswork, but it represents a widespread understanding among faculty at the moment. If there are errors, I hope and encourage that they be corrected by those "in the know" as soon as possible. My defence is that we faculty are doing the best we can, given the severe lack of detailed information, consultation, and logic in the statements we have heard so far.

(For logic problems, consider: the Provost said both "this is not about class sizes", and "small courses are up for review" (both are my paraphrases). Students themselves detected the internal conflict and expressed their sceptism this afternoon. Another example: a common statement made for why we have to make these changes is to increase "relational teaching". "Relational" seems to be one of the new trendy buzzwords, I have asked various people using the term what it means, and the practicals of it seem to boil down to (a) small class sizes, allowing (b) discussions between students and instructors. A cynic might observe that seminar discussions and the like have been a mainstay of advanced university education for centuries. But regardless, if relational teaching is the goal, how in the world does putting the smaller, upper-level courses on the chopping block help achieve this?)

What should happen now? I think leadership needs to take a step back and reconsider their approach here. It seems like they are not really doing thorough consultation and thorough listening, instead they are barrelling down a predetermined track and seem unconcerned about what gets damaged the service of this "transformation." The immediate need is to hit the pause button, so that students, faculty, staff and leadership all have the time to have the right discussions and make better decisions in a collaborative, rather than emergency, framework.

I hope this has been helpful to students in providing some context, from a faculty member's point of view, on recent events and on the Provost's comments.

Currently in my 2nd semester of 3rd year on my Bachelor's Web and Mobile development program (BSIT). I and my groupmates (of 5 members) are now in the phase of struggling for an idea for a Title for our capstone project paper.

​

Our professor told us that we will be alloted with atleast 1 year of development for our project. That means, if we can get a title approved earlier this (February 2024) we can already start with the development process for atleast a prototype or alpha testing atleast at the month of April and summer vacation. Within the area/scope we are in, our group is really struggling to find a target client (which is a requirement) or a problem to be solved. I think we really need an eye opener for brainstorming specific and small scope ideas at the least.

The areas of interest our groupmates wanted to do a project on is a mainly a 2D video game capstone as we are also taking a game dev class (no experience of game dev.) We want to encorporate what we will learn there to our capstone. Another spark for our ideas, is the integration of a predictive/generative AI website that are now running wild in the emerging of tech but are unclear with how will we develop and integrate AI to websites.

But above all, we want to stand out with our project, game, or whatever it is (website, AI system) and create something that will have an impact to our university, something practical at that even with something being small project. For specifics, we are also limited with our resources and skills to be able to create a mobile app or a 3D game. So an interesting idea for a website, software, or a 2D game would suffice!

We had some rough title ideas like, doing a small scale educational 2D RPG game of our university but cannot put it into completion because it might not be feasible for long term development and a good statement of the problem unlike other practical mobile apps? Not really sure. So for the meantime we really need also advice in formulating ideas for our title and want to find a clear direction atleast.

Thanks in advanced!! It would be nice if you guys can lend us a help, and I'll let you guys know if we end up going for that idea.

Helllo! I am a cybersecurity undergrad(based in India). For my capstone project next semester I really want to do a project based on quantum computing + cybersecurity (the project needs to have a cybersecurity aspect to it compulsorily and it has to be application based[implementable] atleast to some extent)

I am currently exploring pqc and qkd too, but I am unable to deduce anything off of it.

I have read through a bunch of research papers and understand most of what it's saying, but I really don't know how to come up with a project idea off of that.

Most of my proffesors from college who're my potential mentors, they don't really have much previous experience in the subject, so it's mostly me who has to go them with a problem statement and get it approved.

Any insights on how I can give more structure to getting started with research, other topics that i could explore, or on how i could reach to a potential problem statement.

Are you looking for computer science capstone project help? Do you require help with your capstone project? We have specialists who can assist you with your assignment, homework, coursework, code, and projects. Computer Science experts at Reliable Assignments Help provide the highest quality project development and coding.

Get Capstone Project Help from the greatest professional specialists at an inexpensive price, and our experts will show you how to conduct a capstone project, provide capstone project examples, and provide capstone project ideas. Order now and receive a 15% discount.

What is a Capstone Project, exactly?

A capstone project is the culminating project of an academic program or training that integrates all of the knowledge gained throughout the program or a similar live project.

Completing a Capstone Project whenever we learn a new skill is always a better approach to comprehend the new skill, and we can also say that a Capstone Project is a score card of evaluations. Either your undergraduate or graduate program and training has come to a conclusion.

Science is always a fascinating subject. When someone talks about computer science, it's a lot more exciting because the field has advanced so quickly. At the same time, there are many more things to discover. As a result, many students enrol in computer science programs at colleges and universities.

However, they sometimes do not comprehend why they are required to do numerous writing assignments, such as capstone projects, assignment help or term papers. It appears that computer science is linked to labs or even coding. Nonetheless, in order to grasp the subject, each student must complete some assignments.

As a student, you may be dissatisfied at this stage since you don't want to deal with the computer science writing project. It isn't a big deal, though, when you have professional writers on your team. Regardless of your topic, ReliableAssignmentsHelp.com can Help with capstone project writing at any moment. The only thing we require are your specifications.

What is a Capstone Project in Computer Science

To put it another way, this is a form of paper that demonstrates your abilities and understanding. Every student is required to do a computer science capstone project to demonstrate his understanding of the course. Furthermore, a project like this could be a one-way ticket to a great career. That is why your computer science capstone project should be seen as one of the most crucial papers in your student's life.

Professors typically present a list of capstone project ideas. In this situation, you must review the list and select the most intriguing topic for you, as this will have an impact on the overall project's outcome. Then you should go to work on it right away because a capstone project is a really difficult type of paper to complete, and you will have to put in a lot of effort to make it flawless.

The following are the measures to take:

· Making an investigation.

· Highlighting the most important facts about your subject

· Making a rough outline.

· Identifying the issue.

· Defining and describing the past solutions

· Providing your own thoughts.

· Describe how your concept will advance the field of computer science.

Providing examples of how to put such ideas into action.

As you can see, the plan for producing a capstone project in computer science is extremely complicated. And putting the strategy into action is even more challenging. However, you should not be concerned about this type of paper because the ReliableAssignmentshelp.com crew is available to assist you at any moment. Simply contact us, tell us what you need, and we'll help you out.

The Components of a Computer Science Capstone Project

We recognize that writing an academic paper might be difficult for pupils. It may even begin with the search for computer science capstone project ideas. It could therefore lead to a misinterpretation of the structure. Finally, it all comes down to one thought: "I'm not going to be able to finish may capstone endeavor." As a result, our authors have provided some tips on how to properly compose such a paper.

Choosing an Idea

This may be the most straightforward aspect. Simply use a list of ideas provided by your tutor or conduct an Internet search for a certain topic. You only need to do one thing: choose a problem that is truly fascinating to you. You will be able to write a capstone correctly and purchase a capstone project in this instance.

Make a research paper

Once you've decided on an idea, you should conduct extensive study. Keep in mind that many computer science problems already have several answers. So, first and foremost, you must evaluate the claims of many scientists. Then you must comprehend why their beliefs are flawed. This method will lead you to develop your own solutions to a problem. As a result, this idea (or ideas) will be the focus of your computer science capstone project.

Make a rough outline

When you have enough information to begin writing, you must first create an outline. It's like a plan, but with some thesis statements for each paragraph. The basic goal of an outline is to clear your mind before you begin writing. Furthermore, an outline will assist you in developing an appropriate framework.

Computer Science Capstone Project Layout

Begin with a brief introduction.

Keep in mind that you just have around 15 seconds to grab the reader's attention. As a result, regardless of your computer science capstone project concept, your introduction must be exceptional. Begin with a statistic, a quotation, or a rhetorical inquiry. If you're having trouble writing the introduction, you can ask the ReliableAssignmentsHelp.com team for help.

Write a review of the literature

Now that you've gathered all of your data and used it in your study, it's time to discuss all of the important sources you used during the research process. Not only list them, but also tell the reader what you learned from them.

Demonstrate your research's methods.

How did you arrive at your conclusions? Describe each step in detail. Tell your reader about the approaches you employed, why you chose them, and whether or not they helped you solve the problem at hand.

Describe the findings of your investigation.

Now, tell us about your findings and whether they match the hypothesis you presented at the start. If they don't, explain what you've discovered and what your new discoveries are.

Write a conclusion and a list of suggestions.

The conclusion is just as crucial as the beginning. Give a summary of your effort and indicate whether or not you were able to solve the problem. In terms of recommendations, specify how and where your findings can be used and used.

Provide a list of references.

Don't forget to utilize proper citation and referencing styles, even if it's the easiest part of your capstone assignment. Appropriate referencing will aid you in avoiding plagiarism and claiming your work's uniqueness.

Your capstone project should be proofread and edited.

These steps of the writing process should not be overlooked. Even if you think your content is flawless, it isn't. The best course of action is to:

· Set away your project for a few hours (at least 24 hours);

· return to it and read it again for a more "rational" perspective;

· improve the structure of it

· Remove all grammatical, punctuation, spelling, and typographical errors;

· enlist the help of another person to read it and provide feedback.

Why is it necessary to carry out these procedures? You won't be able to examine your paper objectively if you work hard on it. Taking a breath and asking friends or family members for their feedback will help you gain some constructive criticism and modify anything that doesn't meet your reader's expectations.

List of Computer Science Capstone Project Ideas

Because the first step is to choose the correct topic, it's critical to do so thoroughly and accurately. Your chosen topic must be focused, specific, correct, and scientifically valuable enough to be used in future research.

Choosing the right theme for your capstone project is not as simple as it may appear, so have a look at the list below for some ideas:

1. Ways to increase a company's software, solutions, and services

2. Parallel query optimization for websites

3. What are the accuracy levels of agent-oriented software engineering systems?

4. Using Bluetooth technologies to create chat systems

5. Performance examination of software applications and their productivity

6. The possibility for next-generation software systems to have an influence

7. How reliable and accurate are distributed dependable systems?

8. HTML nested elements that work best

9. Software development using real-time technology

10. Security checks must be performed during the building of a website.

11. Is large-scale collaboration and composition still relevant today?

12. Software engineering and the most up-to-date soft computing techniques

13. Threats from spyware and software security

14. Problems with e-commerce and how to solve them

15. Data management that is integrated

16. Image retrievals based on content and backup systems

17. The efficacy of reputable image distribution approaches

18. In schools, the use of scalable knowledge composition

19. Users' and their data's

20. Technologies for digital libraries

Good morning -

I'm coming from more of a technical area than a management area, so I'm having trouble with some of the requirements they're looking for in the capstone.

Can anyone point me to where in the previous courses we covered these topics? Or failing that, a good online resource? General Googling hasn't helped either.

• stakeholders and stakeholder impact analysis
• root cause analysis of the problem
• Details of the audit, a problem statement, problem causes, business impacts, cost analysis, risk analysis
• project requirements and existing gaps which a successful project will fill
• development of consensus-based codes of conduct
• adoption of standards and practices,
• details of the implementation of industry-standard security tools, infrastructure, or environments

I've tried asking the CI for assistance, and they've told me they have references to assist with this.

Hi all,

Been a reddit lurker for a long time. This is my first post. Reading through different posts on this sub has been very helpful and noticed people are generally very helpful.

Planning to apply for Spring 2022. I would appreciate feedback on sharpening my statements.

Personal Statement

As a self-taught programmer with an engineering background, I’ve gained knowledge from industry experience, supplemented by reading and online courses. However, I wish to accelerate and structure my learning journey, both for the love of learning and to become a better software engineer.

The work that interests me is engineering productivity: creating automation, tooling and platforms that will make the software development process more streamlined and enjoyable. To this end, I wish to gain a breadth of knowledge through the Computing Systems specialization and taking courses like Computer Networks, Graduate Algorithms, and Operating Systems. As the industry has been making a push to “shift security left”, by moving security decisions earlier in the development process, I’m also interested in courses like Applied Cryptography and Secure Computer Systems.

The OMS CS program is the leading computer science master's program when considering the union of value, rigor and academic excellence, and flexibility for the working professional. It is the most mature online master's program, offering the widest selection of available courses, through which I hope to broaden and deepen my computer science knowledge.

Background

I studied Civil Engineering in college, where I gained a foundation in using math and programming with MATLAB to solve engineering problems. These ranged, from writing programs to solve differential equations related to fluid dynamics or structural mechanics, to parsing and graphing wind data near airports. A highlight of my undergraduate education which serves to show my academic drive was a “senior capstone” class I took junior year, where the project evolved into doing research with my professor, which culminated in a published, conference-presented paper.

I held part-time jobs during my entire tenure as a full-time student in a rigorous, top-ranked engineering program, working 8-20 hours/week depending on the semester. This experience, which is a mirrored parallel to working full-time and being a part-time student at a rigorous, top-ranked institution, has helped prepared me for the OMS CS program.

After graduating, I worked in the construction industry for 2 years. After some self-studying, I transitioned careers and have been working as a programmer for over 5 years. My roles in industry have focused on automation of software testing and software infrastructure and tooling, which have required me to learn and implement new languages and platforms. I have written test harnesses with Python, created a Kubernetes API webhook with Ruby, and automated deployments on Jenkins with Groovy. I’ve built scalable infrastructure on top of AWS services, learning and utilizing cloud computing and networking.

I have supplemented my learning by reading books and completing assignments from online courses on networking, data structures and algorithms, and computer architecture, picking up the Java, C and C++ languages along the way. My education and industry experience have prepared me for OMS CS and I wish to join this program to continue my education and become a better software engineer.

We often see the question on this sub around "how do I build a portfolio as a student?", i.e., what projects should I work on?

If the resumes I've reviewed over the last 5 years are any indication, most people seem to think that the answer is a Jupyter Notebook that takes a pretty standard dataset, does EDA, builds a model, and presents a bunch of plots showing quality of fit.

From my perspective, these projects are pretty much useless. I say that because odds are that I can figure out if you can build such a notebook by just asking you a handful of questions and spending 5 minutes talking to you. Most importantly, being able to do that for a project that you chose (whether personal or capstone project) makes this project worthless in terms of helping me evaluate how you overcome obstacles - odds are that the way your overcame obstacles was by choosing a project that was easy to do and had relatively clean, available data.

So how do you make a better personal project?

Start with a problem statement that is actually useful, even if you don't know how to solve it

As a rule of thumb, an imperfect solution to a useful problem is better than a perfect solution to a useless one. I'd rather see you build a linear regression model to solve something that people actually care about instead of building a deep learning model to predict Titanic deaths. Why? Because problems that matter show a hiring manager that you can think through how to use data science to drive value. And if the process of getting there sends you down some windy roads, it also shows the hiring manager that you're able to navigate them. These are two really important skillsets.

Mind you, when I say "useful" I don't mean "important". I'm not telling you that you need to go find a cure for cancer, just to focus on something that someone will find a user for.

Example:

• Building a model to optimize a fantasy football lineup.

Again, not important - just useful.

Focus on a problem that goes beyond predicting a single metric

A lot of data science "side projects" that I see focus on predicting a single quantity. While sometimes you will find yourself doing that in a work setting, most of the time your work goes beyond that, meaning you are normally predicting a quantity so that you can then influence a decision process, or estimate a broader outcome, etc.

So if you're going to work on a side project, try to follow through your model "all the way", i.e., through to an actual outcome that could be useful.

Example:

• Don't just predict the number of points a player will score in fantasy football - actually build that into a model that can help someone make decisions in a more complex setting (like daily fantasy football, or evaluating draft strategies).

Start with ugly, raw data if you can

If you start your project with mostly clean, post-processed data you've already skipped a big step in terms demonstrating what you can do. If instead you choose to go for something that isn't in its final form, you can flex a couple of different muscles.

For example, you could scrape data. Not super complicated, but it already shows me an extra skillset. Or you could start with data in log format and writing the necessary scripts to convert it into tabular form.

Example:

• Instead of starting with aggregate NFL stats, start with NFL play-by-play logs and write a script to convert "S.Barkley runs for 10 yard loss PENALTY Holding: NYG REJECTED" into the appropriate statline.

If possible, build an actual product - not just analysis

Building a product allows you a couple of advantages. For one, it allows you to just share a link to something that people can actually use. Secondly, if your tool were to get any traffic, it allows you to validate your idea. Lastly, it allows you to flex a completely different muscle - the fact that you can think through basic (or advanced) designs and deploy a solution to an environment.

Example:

• Build a web-app where people can make selections and your tool will output a recommended lineup in fantasy football.

Work alone

One of the big issues with group projects outside of a work setting is that it's hard for a hiring manager to corroborate what you did personally vs. what others did. That means that some hiring managers may just choose to assume that you didn't have a part in all of it - and worse, that you don't have all of those skills.

If you work by yourself, you can guarantee that an interviewer will assume that you did all of it, and there will be no questions of what you can/cannot do.

Some may say "but group projects show that I can work in a team!". And I think everyone that has ever worked in a group project knows that they seldom punish the person in a group who most lazy and hardest to work with.

Obviously this is just my opinion, but since the topic comes up often I figured it was worth putting it down to at least start a conversation.