Ik heb zelf een bijzondere stressvolle job en een druk leven (klein kinderen, verbouwing etc etc, the usual). Met dat ik constant onder spanning sta merk ik dat ik eigenlijk niet meer droom, of het is te zeggen, ik herinner mij de dromen niet. Of ik daadwerkelijk niet droom weet ik dus niet (waarschijnlijk wel...).
Enkel als ik eens een week verlof neem en echt totaal disconnect dan komen de wildste dromen boven die ik me wel degelijk kan herinneren de volgende ochtend. Als ik een week verlof neem waar ik toch nog hier en daar met werk bezig zijn dan droom ik weer niet.
Zijn er andere die dit ook ervaren? En, belangrijker, is dat iets waar ik me eigenlijk zorgen om moet maken?

(Pun intended)
*** Effort Post ***
Whenever the topic of socialism or welfare comes up in Christian circles, the notion of Christian voluntarism is quick to follow. What is this Christian voluntarism? It is the idea that national welfare should be based on voluntary charity by the church, not the state. This idea seems to have influence in George Bush’s Compassionate Conservatism, and also to a lesser degree in David Cameron’s Big Society.
Two defenses of the concept are in “The Tragedy of American Compassion” by Marvin Olasky, and “Christian Charity vs Government Welfare” by Thomas Johnson[1]. In truth, elements of the idea itself has subtlety become accepted by a very many Christians, and is present in general Christian apologetics on economics (see bibliography). It must be noted that the proponents of the idea rarely embrace the term Christian Voluntarism[2], which seems to be rather a function of how generally accepted and non-sequitur the idea seems to be.
The theology behind Christian Voluntarism
Sadly, many of the texts linked do not have a strong theological basis; they are largely historical defenses for the idea (See Olasky 2008 and Johnson 1970). Thus, a strongman of their theology must rely on those aforementioned Christian apologetic sources rather substantially (see bibliography). Also, thanks to u/Laojac who provided a strongman here.
Christian voluntarism is fundamentally reliant on the charity practiced by the early Christian Church. We know that people in the church shared their property with each other and cared for each other; Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:32-37. We know they were commanded to care for their families, alongside the poor, and that there were fundraising efforts to send money over to people in need in the church (1 Tim 5:3,8, Galatians 2:10, Hebrews 13:2-3, 2 Corinthians 8-9). Christian Voluntarism takes this model for charity and attempts to nationalize it is a welfare system, for charity. It uses a few methods to support this.
First, it argues that bible tells us that giving should be voluntary. 2 Corinthians 8-9, and especially 2 Corinthians 9:7, exhort voluntary charity, not done under compulsion. Ergo, the state should not require taxation to fund welfare. Whilst the online tracts do not go much further than this, there is an interesting way that this can be extrapolated further. The particular significance of this verse, interestingly enough, is it is one of the key verses to refute the requirement of tithing. Tithing existed under the wholistic economic system of the old testament that did have many rather radical economic policies; the sabbatical year and the year of jubilee, etc. So to call in this verse against the requirement of taxation does provide a rather big challenge; this new idea of caring in the new testament is not a system of governance, like in the old testament, with taxes and regulations. It is a system guided by the holy spirit, whereby people voluntarily care for those around them. The requirement for people to care for families in 1 timothy 5 would definitely fall into this.
Second, it fundamentally ties welfare to work. To quote 2 Thessalonians 3:10 - “those who do not work shall not eat”. This can be taken in the more obvious sense of “there is no such thing as a free lunch” – people need to work to provide for a living, but for the Christian voluntarists, it is taken as a command of a mutual obligation – those who do not try to work shall not get welfare. (Olasky 2008, p 9-10). Unsurprisingly, this is where ideas of “deserving” and “undeserving poor” come from worthy (Olasky 2008, p 11-12). This also forms what welfare should look like – Welfare has a purpose to help people make a living for themselves (Olasky 2008, p 25, 29). But specifically, in practice it also means that those who don’t want to work should be excluded from welfare (Olasky 2008, p 12, 29, 228). Christian voluntarist tracts argue further that welfare itself is corrupting in that it enables backwardness and degeneracy to exist, encouraging laziness and the breakdown of families (for example, Olasky 2008, p xi -xvii, 222).
Third, supporting this is the argument that Biblical notions of property are explicitly in favor of Liberal private property. This is the belief that the owner of property, can do whatever they want with their property. This starts with an appeal to Exodus 20:15,17 as examples of OT Justifications for private property. It points to the various points in the bible that recognize private ownership. To reference a few; Genesis 4:4, Micah 4:4, Acts 5:4. A very notable verse is Mathew 20:15; “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?” – taking this statement at face value would suggest Jesus is very much in favour of liberal private property rights. The whole conclusion of this that people have the right to do with their property what they want. The most immediate implication is the government cannot seize property - This is used against the threat of state socialism.
The Problems with this theology
Of course, we need to recognize that the Bible doesn’t tell Christians to take over the state and implement a welfare state. The fact is that the bible doesn’t prescribe a structure for economic justice in the broader national community. But similarly, this means the bible doesn’t prescribe the Church as being the welfare system of the broader national community. There is a legitimate question about how to pursuing economic justice in light of biblical commands and examples, and the description of the New Testament church (Acts 2:42-47, Acts 4:34-35) exists to show us what economic justice should look like in Christian communities specifically. However, it is a significant stretch to argue that this decentralised system of churches providing welfare is what the bible prescribes as the only legitimate national welfare system.
NT Christian communities were not set up to be a welfare system for the Roman state. They were examples of model Christian communities that we can look to guide us in holy living. They did exist as an alternate perception of economic justice to Old Testament Israel’s state-embedded system, certainly. However, this alternative state was for a few reasons; First Old Testament Israel was a sacrificial system, one that was no longer needed after Christ’s death and resurrection (Heb 10:1-18). Second, Old Testament Israel was a theocratic state, that would make a people for God who would be outwardly different from all around them (Deut 28:9-10). However, Christ did not come to establish a kingdom of this world (John 18:36), instead a people who would follow him due to their changed heart (John 18:36, John 3:5-8). The nullification of the theocratic state of Israel was not a rejection of the state’s interference in economic policy. Rather, it was a recognition that the theocratic state had fulfilled its soteriological and eschatological purpose.
With this context out of the way, we can refute the specific justifications of the voluntarists; The first, 2 Corinthians 9:7, which tells us that giving should be voluntary, not under compulsion, was in a specific letter given to a specific community responding to a crisis at the time. To transform it into a condemnation of state taxation for welfare is a substantial stretch. Paul made clear that it was also a test; he would not command this church to give charity but wanted to know the sincerity of their love, by comparing how much they gave compared to other churches (2 Corinthians 8:8-9).
He was not laying down a law about the state. Nothing in the passage suggests that the state cannot provide welfare. Nothing in the passage suggests that the state cannot demand taxation. Indeed, bible does not reject compulsion in terms of taxation as Christians are exhorted to pay their taxes (Mark 12:13-17; Rom 13:6-7). Contextually, the Christian Voluntarist must also grapple with the absence of a condemnation of the grain dole of Rome, both within this passage and within the broader New Testament. Now, one could argue that if the state gets involved in welfare then the sincerity of Christian love has failed – but that is a very different argument, an argument that needs to grapple with both the fallen nature of humanity, and the social implications of democracy. Nevertheless, the passage at hand does not refute state taxation or state provision of welfare.
Moving to the second justification – that, welfare should be tied to work. This specific passage, 2 Thessalonians 3:10, occurs within a context where there are believers who are “idle and disruptive” (v 6, 11) and who are “not busy; they are busybodies”. They are commanded to settle down and eat (v 12). To use this passage to encourage Christians to work is good. It is not the purpose of the passage to be used for a model of how a welfare state works. Unlike 2 Cor 9:7, which is deliberately misused by Christians to deny welfare to others – this passage can be used to form a welfare state system. Like Acts 4:32 for the Socialists, and 1 Corinthians 14:12-26 for the Corporatists, 2 Thessalonians 3:10 seems quite able to be derived to justify a political policy. However, to declare that 2 Thessalonians 3:10 necessitates a policy program on welfare is misguided – it was a teaching for a particular church at a particular time. The practical considerations of this particular section will get further treatment further on.
The final argument that the bible prescribes liberal private property. This argument has lies that it conceals in truths. Fundamentally, the bible does recognize property rights. It recognizes that we can own property and have liberty in using that property. However, the bible also recognizes two other things; First, that we are not the absolute owners of that property. God is the absolute owner of everything, not humanity (1 Cor 10:26; Psalm 24:1; Deut 10:14). The second is that any property we have, we steward for God; we are not allowed to use property for whatever purpose we deem fit. The OT system has a variety of restrictions on how we can use property, much of which existed for economic justice. There were prohibitions on taking interest (Leviticus 26:36-37); Gleaning laws that mean restricted the amount of produce farmers could get from their own harvest, requiring they leave some to the poor (Lev 19:9-10; Deut 24:19-21). Furthermore, there are the radical redistribution policies with the Sabbatical year and year of jubilee (Leviticus 25:1-7, 8-55). The commandment to not steal was situated within these verses about responsibilities, something noted by Both Catholics and Reformed Christians (See the Catholic Catechism, Westminster Larger Catechism and Heidelberg Catechism). The New Testament similar has a variety of commands about how to use property; (Luke 6:30, 1 John 3:17, 1 Tim 5:8, 6:17-18).
There is one verse that falls outside of the above explanation; Mathew 20:15 – “Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?”. The context of the verse is that Jesus is teaching a parable. In the parable, the vineyard owner pays all his workers the same amount, no matter what they work. Parables have single purposes – the purpose of this parable is that it doesn’t matter however late you sign up to the gospel, you will still be saved. It is not a parable with prescriptions on wage payments. It is not a parable with prescriptions on private property.
Fundamentally, there is no biblical prescription against the state establishment of a welfare state. This, in itself, does not disqualify Christian voluntarism as an idea; rather it means that advocating Christian voluntarism requires making a different argument – that the Christian voluntarist form of welfare is the best form of welfare.
The Economics of a Christian Voluntarist welfare state
Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s seminal work “The Three Worlds of welfare Capitalism”, divides welfare states into three ideal types; “Liberal”, “Conservative” and “Social Democratic”. Of these, Christian Voluntarism is closest to the “Liberal” ideal type which is found in the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. A liberal welfare state is one that aims to encourage the pursuit of employment, and so the state will provide as little as possible (Esping-Andersen 1990, p. 42). Means testing and mutual obligation is often used to minimize the states ways to welfare provision. Those who cannot rely on government support must rely on charity (Esping-Andersen 1990, p. 26-27).
Christian Voluntarism is essentially a Christian defense for the “Liberal” welfare state. However it does far more, because in practice it would mean the undermining of the liberal welfare state. The Christian voluntarist would tear down the last vestiges of a state led system so that people instead rely on Charity. They would attempt to further liberalize an already liberal system. The practical implications of this are that even a state led system that incorporates the principles of the “deserving and undeserving” poor, alongside the mutual obligations of “those who don’t work don’t eat”, are too much for the Christian Voluntarist.
This system fails both quantitatively and qualitatively. It fails quantitatively because a welfare state based on charity cannot support the entire population. Welfare encompasses old age, unemployment, workplace injuries, permanent disabilities and more. The amount of money needed to organise such a welfare system is unachievable by charities (Green 2017). Reviews of “The Tragedy of American compassion” point out that the historical charitable system championed did not provide welfare for all – it was very geographically dependent (Hammack, 1996, p 261-262).
This system also fails qualitatively. One would think that a Christian voluntarist would see that charity and welfare are symptoms of economic greater problems, and addressing those greater problems would reduce the burdens on charity.[3] But Christian Voluntarists don’t address the issues which lead people to need charity. Unaffordable healthcare and involuntary unemployment are two clear examples of structural economic problems; the former due to the various oligopolies that exist throughout the healthcare system, which is unsurprising given it is a market with high start-up costs, and the latter often due a deficiency in demand. The solutions to these factors require substantial economic reform by means of regulation and government spending, which is antithetical to the Christian Voluntarist ideal. Christian voluntarists are not advocating for these solutions to reduce the burden on charities.
Two further addendums need to be added to this analysis. The first is that there are flaws with regards to the policy derivatives of 2 Thessalonians 3:10. The idea of an undeserving poor has lead to many problems – for example this group has historically included beggars and criminals (Schmalz 2017). The definition of who is undeserving will inevitably both include and exclude people who may need help. Olasky, for example, includes Alcoholics and Drug Addicts as part of his ‘undeserving poor’ (p. 227-228), when, in truth, these groups could quite easily be seen as the most needing of support – albeit in a more compressive form then mere cash handout. The principle of mutual obligations behind this need to be thought through. Interestingly enough, the gleaning system in the OT seems to be a system that follows this idea; welfare is there, but people have to work to get it. This principles behind this are also evident in a full employment policy in the modern era. However, today’s governments generally prefer of “mutual obligations” for welfare, or forms of workfare instead. In the context where workers outnumber jobs these programs essentially act as punitive “full employment policy”.
The second is the Christian voluntarist claim that any welfare system should be orientated towards public morality alongside economic justice. This is a fair claim, and frankly welfare systems must be cautiously constructed with consideration of economic justice, and also the moral fabric of society. Here the example of the ideal type of the Conservative welfare state (historically found in found in Germany, Belgium and Austria), can be drawn upon. This welfare state, for example, is constructed with the family in mind (Esping-Andersen 1990, p. 27). It also relies largely on decentralised system of welfare provision that incorporate religious providers (Esping-Andersen 1990, p. 27). Even with the focus on the moral fabric of society, other factors must also come into play; The conservative welfare state benefits married couples over singles; what does this mean for the economic situation of single mothers? Such a welfare system needs to counterbalance the social fabric of society with it’s economic needs.
To Conclude
Theologically, the claims of Christian Voluntarism do not stand up; there is not set biblical principle about the state’s involvement in welfare provision. Economically, the Christian Voluntarists fail to appreciate the quantitative size of charitable provision needed to match the welfare state, nor do they deal with the structural issues facing the economy.
Fundamentally, I am not a Christian Socialist. I do not believe that the descriptions of Christian communities in Acts can be described as socialist – I may write another piece like this later on. I’m not coming from a liberal, modernist or progressive Christian perspective. Rather I’m annoyed that Conservative Christians have accepted the claims of liberal economies and tried to make a more liberalized welfare system based on a misguided claim about following the Bible.
[1] The specific defense provided by Johnson is explicitly voluntarist, in that it draws on voluntarism as a philosophy. It is also Pelagian and so should be rejected; “Any Christian who does not openly and vehemently denounce all forms of government welfare, cannot, in truth, call himself a Christian, for government welfare is the antithesis of Christian charity.” - this is clearly heresy.
[2] Indeed, the term only seems to appear in online Christian Forums. However, Academics do describe this idea as voluntarist, and it is a Christian defense of Voluntarism, so terming the idea “Christian Voluntarism” is apt.
[3] This was the approach of the founder of the St Vincent De Paul society, Frederic Ozanam. He was an economics lecturer and argued that charity was insufficient to change the situation – what was needed was a change to the relationship between workers and capital (Moody 1953, p 129).
Bibliography
General:
Green, E., 2017. The Voluntarism Fantasy, Democracy A Journal of Ideas, viewed 22 October 2022, https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/32/the-voluntarism-fantasy/
Konczal, M., 2014. Can Religious Charities Take the Place of the Welfare State?, The Atlantic, viewed 22 October 2022, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/budget-religion/520605/
Schmalz, M., 2017. Taxing the rich to help the poor? Here’s what the Bible says, The conversation, viewed 3 June 3, 2023 https://theconversation.com/taxing-the-rich-to-help-the-poor-heres-what-the-bible-says-88627
Zeiger, H., 2014. The voluntarism fantasy?, Philanthropy Daily, viewed 22 October 2022, https://www.philanthropydaily.com/the-voluntarism-fantasy/
Christian Voluntarism & Compassionate Conservatism:
Olasky, M N, 2008, The Tragedy of American Compassion, Crossway Books, https://archive.org/details/tragedyofamerica0000olas/mode/2up - Olasky provides a specifically Christian Argument.
Johnson, T L, 1970 May 9, “Christian Charity vs Government Welfare”, Human Events,
Accessible: https://fee.org/articles/christian-charity-vs-government-welfare/, https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/christian-charity-government-welfare/ - Johnson also provides a specifically Christian Argument.
Weed D, 1977, The Compassionate Touch, Carol Stream, https://archive.org/details/compassionatetou00wead/mode/2up - Weed provides a secular argument.
Argumentative Sources
Esping-Andersen, GJ, 1990, The Three Worlds of welfare Capitalism, Princeton University Press.
Hammack, DC, 1996, ‘The Tragedy of American Compassion’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
Kuyper, A, 2021, On Business and Economics, Lexham Press.
Lee, F.N 1988, Biblical Private Property Versus Socialistic Common Property, EN Tech.J. 3, pp. 16-22, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j03_1/j03_1_016-022.pdf
Moody, J, 1953, Church and society : Catholic social and political thought and movements, Arts Inc
Christian Apologetics on Economics
Got Questions, 2022, What is Christian Socialism?, Got Questions, viewed 22 October 2022,
https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-socialism.html
Groothuis D, 2021, CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIALISM: WHAT SHOULD A CHRISTIAN BELIEVE?, Focus on the Family, viewed 22 October 2022, https://www.focusonthefamily.com/church/christianity-and-socialism/
Jeremiah D, 2022, What does the Bible say About Socialism, DavidJeremiah.Blog, viewed 22 October 2022, https://davidjeremiah.blog/what-does-the-bible-say-about-socialism/#:~:text=While%20the%20Bible%20encourages%20generosity,according%20to%20His%20sovereign%20will.
Miller C, 2013a, 2 corinthians 8, communism as an economic system, A little Perspective, viewed 22 October 2022, https://www.alittleperspective.com/2-corinthians-8-communism-as-an-economic-system-2/
Miller C, 2013b, 2 2 corinthians 9, giving cheerfully (communism, part two), A little Perspective, viewed 22 October 2022, https://www.alittleperspective.com/2-corinthians-9-giving-cheerfully-communism-part-two/
Piper, J., 2015. How Should Christians Think About Socialism, Desiring God, viewed 22 October 2022, https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-should-christians-think-about-socialism
Understanding 2012, 2nd Corinthians 8: Charity or Socialism? (Love or Compulsion?), Understanding, viewed 22 October 2022, https://cutpaste.typepad.com/understanding/2012/08/2nd-corinthians-8-charity-or-socialism-love-or-compulsion.html
Hughes G, 2018, Was Jesus a Socialist, When we Understand the Text, viewed 22 October 2022, https://wwutt.com/was-jesus-a-socialist/
TOW Project, 2011, Sharing the Wealth (2 Corinthians 8:13-15), viewed 22 October 2022, https://www.theologyofwork.org/new-testament/2-corinthians/sharing-the-wealth-2-corinthians-813-15

1. "THE SPIRITS IN PRISON" (1 Peter 3:19). A correct understanding of this passage may be obtained by noting the following facts:
   
2. Men are never spoken of in Scripture as "spirits". Man has a spirit, but he is not "a spirit", for a spirit hath not flesh and bones". In this life man has "flesh and blood", a "natural" (or psychical) body. At death this spirit "returns to God Who gave it" (Ps. 31:5. Eccles. 12:7. Luke 23:46. Acts 7:59). In resurrection "God giveth it a body as it hath pleased Him" (1Cor. 15:38). This is no longer a "natural" (or psychical) body, but a "spiritual body" (1Cor. 15:44).
   
3. Angels are "spirits", and are so called (Heb. 1:7, 14).
   
4. In 2Pet. 2:4 we read of "the angels that sinned"; and in 1Pet. 3:19, 20 of spirits "which sometime were disobedient ... in the days of Noah". In 2Pet. 2:4 we are further told that the fallen angels are reserved unto judgment, and delivered into chains (i.e. bondage or "prison"). Cp. Jude 6.
   
5. The cause of their fall and the nature of their sin are particularly set forth by the Holy Spirit in Jude 6, 7. a. They "left their own habitation".
   

   b. This "habitation" is called (in Greek) oiketerion, which occurs again only in 2Cor. 5:2, where it is called our "house" (i.e. body) with which we earnestly long to be "clothed upon"; referring to the "change" which shall take place in resurrection. This is the spiritual resurrection body of 1Cor. 15:44. c. This spiritual body (or oiketerion) is what the angels "left" (whatever that may mean, and this we do not know). The word rendered "left", here, is peculiar. It is apoleipo = to leave behind, as in 2Tim. 

   4:13, 20, where Paul uses it of "the cloke" and the "parchments" which he left behind at Troas, and of Trophimus whom he left behind at Miletum. Occ. Heb. 4:6, 9; 10:26. Jude 6.
   

   d. They "kept not their first estate (arche)" in which they were placed when they were created. e. The nature of their sin is clearly stated. The sin of "Sodom and Gomorrha" is declared to be "in like manner" to that of the angels; and what that sin was is described as "giving themselves over to 

   fornication, and going after strange flesh" (Jude 6, 7). The word "strange" here denotes other, i.e. different (Gr. heteros = different in kind. See Ap. 124. 2) What this could be, and how it could be, we are not told. We are not asked to understand it, but to believe it. (see further in App. 23 and 25).
   
6. In Gen. 6:1 ,2, 4 we have the historical record, which is referred to in the Epistles of Peter and Jude. There these "angels" are called "the sons of God". This expression in the Old Testament is used always of "angels", because they were not "begotten", but created, as Adam was created, and he is so called in Luke 3:38 (cp. Gen. 5:1). It is used of angels eight times: Gen. 6:2, (*1) 4. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Ps. 29:1 (R.V.m.); and Dan. 3:25. In this last passage there is no article, and it does not mean "the Son of God", but "a son of God", i.e. an angel who was sent into the furnace (Dan. 3:28), as one was into the den of lions (Dan. 6:22). In one passage (Hos. 1:10) the English expression is used of men, but there the Hebrew is different, and it refers only to what men should be "called", not to what they were.
   
7. Returning to 1Pet. 3:19, the expression "the spirits in prison" cannot be understood apart form the whole context. The passage commences with the word "For" (v. 17), and is introduced as the reason why "it is better, if the will of God should (so) will, to suffer for well-doing, than for evil-doing. FOR (v. 18) Christ also suffered for sins once (Gr. hapax) - a Just One for unjust ones - in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death indeed as to [His] flesh, but made alive as to [His] spirit." This can refer only to His spiritual resurrection body (1Cor. 15:45). In death His body was put in the grave (or sepulcher, i.e. Hades), Acts 2:31; but His spirit was "commended to God". Not until His spirit was reunited to the body in resurrection could He go elsewhere. And then He went not to "Gehenna", or back to Hades but to Tartarus (2Pet. 2:4. See Ap. 131. III), where "the angels who sinned" had been "delivered into chains". To these He proclaimed His victory.
   
8. The word rendered "preached" is not the usual word euangelizo (Ap. 121. 4), but the emphatic word kerusso (Ap. 121. 1); which means to proclaim as a herald. Even so Christ heralded His victory over death, and the proclamation of this reached to the utmost bounds of creation. It was "better" THEREFORE to suffer for well doing than for evil doing. He had suffered for well doing. He suffered, but He had a glorious triumph. "Therefore" (runs the exhortation), "if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye" (vs. 14), and it concludes "Forasmuch then as Christ suffered on our behalf as to the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind; for He that hath suffered in the flesh hath done with sin; no longer to live [our] remaining time according to men's lusts, but for God's will... For to this end, to those also who are now dead, were the glad tidings announced, that though (Gr. men) they might be judged according [to the will of] (*2) men, in [the] flesh, yet (Gr. de) they might live [again] according to [the will of] God, in [the] spirit" : i.e. in resurrection (1Pet. 4:1, 2, 6).
   

The above is suggested as the interpretation of the expression "the in-prison spirits", in the light of the whole of the nearer and remoter contexts.
(1) In the first passage (Gen. 6:2) the Alexandrine MS of the Septuagint has "angels" (not "sons"), showing how it was then understood. (2) For the supply of this ellipsis see Rom 8:27, 28, and cp. 1Pet 4:19.

I am a Partner currently looking for another HEB job close to where I live. I went to an interview but they were 30 minutes late. Is this common interview practice for HEB? Because when I interviewed for my ShoppeCurrie position they were 5 minutes late.

Hallo,
Ik werk 32u per week (4 dagen) en heb teveel vrije tijd die ik toch niet goed benut. Ik ga dan liever lekker bijverdienen.
Vanuit werk heb ik een aantal employee benefits met flexibele voorwaarden. Sommigen daarvan lenen zich naar mijn idee uitstekend voor het verdienen van een extra centje buiten de werktijd om.
Ik heb een leasevoertuig van de zaak waar ik onbeperkt kilometers mee mag maken door Europa. Hij is weliswaar wat verouderd, maar het rolt en maakt gebruik van mechanische energie om projectielen weg te schieten. Dit middeleeuws slingerarm-artilleriewapen, in de volksmond ook wel de trebuchet genoemd, gebruik ik tijdens werktijd veelal voor het wegslingeren van zware rotsblokken om zodoende vestingwerken en stadsmuren te saboteren.
Iemand ideeën wat ik in mijn vrije tijd als side job kan doen voor het bijverdienen van wat geld met dit krachtige en accurate belegeringswerktuig?

Ik werk 36u per week (4 dagen) en heb teveel vrije tijd die ik toch niet goed benut. Ik ga dan liever lekker bijverdienen.
Ik heb een elektrische auto van de zaak waar ik onbeperkt KM’s mee mag maken door Europa. De bijtelling betaal ik maandelijks ongeacht of ik wel of niet KM’s maak.
Iemand ideeen? Wat doen anderen als side job?
10k lenen van moeders of 500eu vergokken per maand is een no go.

I have a friend who just got a position as an order Selector at HEB but only speaks Spanish. He passed orientation but didn't understand much since it was only provided in English when they had told him he would receive help in Spanish. Now he's ready to start this week but there is nobody who can help him.
Does HEB offer any accommodations or is there any help provided at the warehouse for language barrier?
Just looking to help him since he's very excited about this job but worries this might be a reason for term. Any advice is really appreciated.

Would working at cvs and heb be conflict of interest???
Edit: trying to get a temporary second job so I can save for rent so I can move out before I get kicked out in a few months

He was a USAF veteran, Texas to the core, first job at HEB, taught us how to fish. I want to make sure we aren't missing anything.

So, as a lot of us expected, a recent report says that the Spurs have interest in making a rather unusual move by their standards to pick up a second first-rounder in the draft next month, presumably to acquire a PG that they hope can start next to Victor Wembanyama for the next decade-plus. It’s an idea that had been gaining traction with fans even before the real whispers started because of how much sense it seemed to make - this is seen as a relatively deep draft, with a lot of intriguing options at a position of need that are currently being mocked in the mid-to-late lottery. I'm sure most people have seen plenty of discussion about it on this sub over the past few days, and in every thread, people are asking the smart first question: "Okay, but what would it take?"
There's a lot of things that factor into that answer, and I'm just some internet dork who watches and reads about and talks about and thinks about basketball too much so I obviously have no idea what kind of discussions GMs are actually having on that front. But I thought it would at least help to look at what the positions we'd presumably be targeting have brought back in trade in the past decade, and then try to approximate value with the Spurs' assets. Firstly, though...
Why would San Antonio do this?
There's two ways to answer that question, and the first is to look at it from the perspective of what the Spurs don't have: a long-term starting Point Guard. I like Tre Jones a lot - he's everything we could've hoped for as a second-round pick and then some - but he's not a player that's going to feasibly run the offense for a contending team. He'd make a fantastic backup, and the Spurs are obviously hoping that Sochan and Victor and to a lesser extent Branham evolve into above-average playmakers, especially as the organization makes strides to get closer to their positionless basketball philosophy. But I don't think any of that is going to supersede a desire to bring a more traditional lead guard into the fold, especially considering what the team does have.
And what San Antonio has right now is a lot of picks. Maybe not as many as OKC or Utah, but a lot nonetheless. Six first-rounders that aren't our own, to be exact, plus the swap rights to Atlanta's 2026 first-rounder and over twenty second-rounders. Simply put, I can guarantee you that the team won't be making all of those picks, because it's not smart roster building to be quite so overloaded with very young players when the idea is to start being competitive again. Having a lot of young talent with promise is a good problem to have until you hit the point of having so many mouths to feed that it starts stunting their development, and we're already looking at a potential slight roster crunch this year. As an example, the Pacers, who are arguably behind us in terms of the rebuilding process now since we won the Wemby sweepstakes, have 5 picks in this year's draft, 3 of them first-rounders, and Kevin Pritchard has already come out and said they're not making all of them. The Spurs, by comparison, could potentially have FIVE first-rounders in 2025 depending on league standings over the next couple years. Eventually, some of these picks will be used as a package to get one better pick or a star player. And there's a good argument that, if it's going to be the former, now is the time, because again, this is a strong draft.
So what specific assets do we have?
I'll go ahead and rank them in descending order by my perception of their value, excluding Wemby because he's obviously the most untouchable of untouchables.

• Sochan and Vassell: Very clearly big parts of this team moving forward and likely starters when our theoretical championship window opens
• Atlanta 2027 unprotected FRP: The Hawks are such a dumpster fire right now in some ways that this could easily end up being a Top 5 pick - notably, the last year of Trae's current contract is 2026-27
• Keldon Johnson: Anyone else tired of talking about him? I'll have a more in-depth look at why trading him might make sense later in this post, but he's still just 23 years old with room to grow and even with his deficiencies, he's got a lot of attractive qualities even if his long-term ceiling might be "good sixth man."
• Atlanta 2025 unprotected FRP
• Atlanta 2026 pick swap: There's an argument that this should be above the 2025 unprotected pick because the 2025 class is looking kinda rough and 2026 includes Cameron Boozer and Cooper Flagg, but ultimately having an extra pick in an individual future draft is, I think, more valuable than a swap because it allows for a move-up package
• Toronto 2024 FRP protected 1-6: Masai Ujiri and the Raptors are a little hard to read right now, even more than usual, but I think there's a good chance this could convey next year and still be in the top 10 somewhere.
• Zach Collins: A good starting center on a bad team or a very good backup center on a better team. He's got the Pop endorsement and trading him would leave our C rotation very light unless we've got something else cooking (not a good thing with Victor coming in), but I wouldn't want him to be the sticking point that holds up a potential good deal.
• Malaki Branham: I might be overrating him a bit here because I'm personally very high on Branham, but I think it's close enough. He's shown very promising flashes at the NBA level already, and if he can get more consistent from 3 it'll be very hard to stop him from scoring. Becoming even a passable defender on top of it would give him 6MOTY-level upside.
• Chicago 2025 FRP protected 1-10: I think Chicago's gonna be forced to blow it up soon. Multiple teams below them in the standings last year should be markedly improved already this season and they might even lose Vooch. So this may not convey for a while, if at all.
• Boston 2028 pick swap, protected for 1st overall: This is probably about even with the Chicago pick, really. Things can change quick in the NBA but I don't expect Boston to be bad for a while, and again, it's just a swap.
• Charlotte 2024 pick, lottery protected: This will almost definitely not convey next year. Maaaaybe in 2025, but I'm really starting to doubt LaMelo's ability to stay on the floor. And a pick outside of the lottery in a bad draft class won't be worth all that much.
• Blake Wesley: I've never been a Wesley believer and he didn't show anything last year to convince me I might be wrong, but maybe some team likes his upside enough that he could work as a sweetener.
• Doug McDermott: A knockdown perimeter movement shooter who isn't worth much on his own, but could be attractive as a veteran piece for a team that can't otherwise hit 3s.
• All of our 20+ SRPs

We also, again, have all of our own FRPs, but there's too many unknowns across the next couple years for me to try and predict their value. Suffice it to say that I wouldn't trade next year's under any circumstances, would only let go of 2025's if it was protected for the lottery, and would probably be willing to have talks about any of them in or after 2026.
Potential Trade Analysis
Before anything else, I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for all or even most of these trades. I'm simply doing my best to demonstrate what we might have to give up based on history.
And again, there are a lot of mitigating factors to these other recent trades. Draft class strength, roster makeup, financial situation, etc. - it's impossible to ever get 1-to-1 comparisons for something like this. But I think they work pretty well as rough examples.
Oh, and here's an aggregation of the current "professional" mock drafts out there in case anyone wants an idea of what prospects we'd be talking about in each position.
One last thing: When I'm talking about trades that have been made for these picks historically, I'm only including ones that were made between the lottery and draft day or on draft night specifically, since obviously the slots for future picks in other trades wouldn't have been known at the time of the deal.
Pick #5 (Detroit)

• 2018: DAL trades w/lightly-protected 2019 1st for pick 3 (the now-famous Luka/Trae trade)

PROPOSAL: This.
We don't have a great comparison point to open with here, but this feels about right to me. No one, media or fans, can agree on Keldon's trade value, and there's some teams I think he very much would not fit on, but I think it makes a lot of sense on Detroit’s end for the reasons Edwards laid out - he opens up a ton of options for the Pistons to experiment with assuming that they actually get a full year of Cade this season and, in the best-case scenario, can become a very good sixth man for them long-term. They really need a young wing, and after the gut punch of falling to #5 where they’re in the unenviable position of having to decide between a bunch of low-floor, high-ceiling guys, they might be tempted to take out the guesswork and go with someone who’s already shown what he can do for a couple years. I'll return to this comparison later, but if Detroit takes Cam Whitmore in this spot, for example, and he becomes what Keldon is now, I think they'd call it a successful pick.
MY EVALUATION: Spurs say no. I think Keldon has more value to SAS than anyone they could be targeting in this spot unless Amen Thompson is still there and the FO is supremely confident in him becoming a decent off-ball player.
Pick #6 (Orlando)

• 2013: NOP trades to PHI with protected 2014 first for Jrue Holiday and pick 42

PROPOSAL: SAS trades Devin Vassell, CHI 1st and pick 33 for picks 6 and 36
I’ve seen rumors that ORL might want to package this and their #11 pick to move up, but I don’t know where that comes from. Can’t see Charlotte taking a deal like that, Portland and allegedly Houston want immediate help instead of two more rookies, and the #5 from Detroit wouldn’t really be worth it from the Magic’s standpoint. Maybe they can send #6 and #11 plus Suggs to the Rockets? Either way, the Magic are another of those teams I was talking about earlier that already has a lot of young players that they want to get touches, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they move one of their two picks for something else.
Holiday was coming off an all-star season, and though Vassell is obviously not an all-star (at least not yet), I do think he's a pretty decent approximation of 2013 Jrue Holiday. Same age, and the best players on their respective teams. Good defense, good outside shot and still some room to grow as a self-creator. I think he was probably looking at some MIP votes last year if he hadn’t gotten hurt.
MY EVALUATION: Spurs say no, obviously. They're not trading Devin. I think they could theoretically get this slot just by giving up a big package of picks, but at that point the evaluation becomes too difficult to really be worth it for this exercise IMO.
Pick #7 (Indiana)

• 2017: MIN trades pick 7 with Kris Dunn and LaVine to CHI for Jimmy Butler and pick 16

Obviously there’s no real similar deal to be found here - if we had a Jimmy Butler we’d be in a wildly different situation in the first place. I could try to put together a big picks package, but IND is guaranteed a very promising prospect at this spot and, in my opinion, they have too many holes in their team right now (or at least a very large defense-shaped hole) to move it for futures when they're already looking at more picks than they want to make.
MY EVAULATION: They'd ask for Vassell and they won't get him; this pick won't be ours. Moving on.
Pick #8 (Washington)

• 2016: SAC trades to PHX for picks 13 and 28, a future 2, and rights to Bogdan Bogdanovic

PROPOSAL: SAS trades Malaki Branham, Tre Jones, TOR 1st, CHA 1st for pick 8 and Delon Wright
Here’s where things start getting a little interesting, because this is the first slot where I can see one of the presumptive primary targets for the Spurs enter the mix in Anthony Black. Indiana might give him a look if they really value his defense and versatility, but I think Walker and Hendricks are more likely directions. So that brings us to Washington. That organization makes my head hurt but I have a hard time seeing a universe where they don’t make this pick. Either they keep smashing their head against the wall of irrelevance or they finally decide to tear it down, and either way it doesn’t make much sense for this pick to find its way to us.
But if the Wizards were to trade this pick, I imagine it'd be because they’re getting a young and high-upside prospect who’s already shown legit NBA flashes in Branham, which they’re sorely lacking and could reasonably be thought of as equivalent to or probably even a little bit better than Bogdanovic in 2016. This also gets them an uber-reliable young backup PG that can be had for a few cheap years (something you'd be pretty happy to get with a #28 pick) and the Spurs take back Wright for salary purposes and to have a veteran PG option of their own, though it’s entirely possible WAS values Wright more highly anyway for defensive purposes.
MY EVALUATION: Both teams say no, although if we put Wesley in there instead of Branham I think things get interesting from the Spurs' point of view. You can never predict the Wizards, but I think Michael Winger would have to be given an offer they can’t refuse to tempt them not to just stay here and pick Black or Hendricks or Whitmore or whoever else has fallen to them. Reportedly, he has the blessing to finally rebuild if he so chooses, and it’s hard to see them not starting the process off here. Not for nothing, but Winger used to work under Presti.
I do wonder what would happen if the Spurs offered Keldon for this pick straight-up, though. If Kuzma leaves, the Washington wing situation suddenly looks completely ghastly. Returning to the "Whitmore-Johnson test," if the Wizards picked Cam up here and he turned into Keldon, I think they'd be quite pleased. Not "all-time draft victory" pleased, but a huge win for a team that's mangled their draft a couple times recently.
Pick #9 (Utah)

• 2013: MIN trades to UTA for picks 14 and 21

PROPOSAL: SAS trades CHA 1st and CHI 1st for pick 9
Pretty simple here. If a team thinks that Chicago pick will convey, late lottery seems like a reasonable place to expect it to land. If the Charlotte pick conveys, it'll be in that 15-20 range.
MY EVALUATION: Utah says no because there's a good chance those picks don't convey, because picks in future drafts are always treated as less valuable than those in the same draft, and because Ainge doesn't make trades when he's not fleecing the other team for all their worth. Also, Utah doesn't really need more future picks either.
You know what? That was boring. How about another option?
PROPOSAL: SAS trades Keldon for pick 9
The Ainge factor remains, but in a vacuum I do think this is pretty fair value straight up. Let’s talk about the SAS rotation for a minute assuming they do indeed make SOME trade for a PG prospect. Wemby and Vassell are starting, no question. Collins got the Pop endorsement at the end of last season, so he’s in there too. That leaves four players fighting for two starting spots: Keldon, Sochan, Tre Jones, and the newly drafted PG. Sochan started 53 of the 56 games he played last year, and with the excellent upside he has, I have a hard time imagining he’s not getting the nod at the 3; even if he’s not, he’ll be getting tons of minutes. I and others have supported the Point Sochan experiment, but if we’re bringing in a real PG, I doubt we’ll see a whole lot more of that and they certainly won’t start a Sochan/Vassell/Keldon/Wemby/Collins lineup. So Keldon’s probably sliding to the sixth man role. And that’s fine - if he has a role on this team when they’re ready to contend again, it’ll be that one - but trading a sixth man for the right to select the guy you theoretically think can be Victor’s running mate for a decade, especially when there’s plenty of other guys off the bench that you want to keep giving minutes to, is more than reasonable all things considered.
As far as UTA goes, they need a PG prospect all on their own but I think they can get Kobe Bufkin with their #16 pick and I kinda love the fit there for him. If you’re the Jazz, would you rather have Keldon and Bufkin or, say, Wallace and Leonard Miller? I don’t know the answer to that, but I think there’s at least a chance they’d prefer the latter, as even with a pretty lean roster I don’t know how badly they want to find playing time for three first rounders this year. Keldon and Markkanen don’t even step on each other’s toes in the UTA system, and though they’ll definitely continue the tank this year to avoid losing their 2024 pick, Keldon could easily still be around on a very team-friendly deal by the time they’re ready to start pushing for the playoffs again.
MY EVALUATION: Utah says no strictly because Ainge gonna Ainge. I'm not sure I'd do it if I was the Spurs, either, because injuries will happen and Victor might get more DNPs for load management this year than any of us want to see. But it’s a conversation worth having and I can’t say I’d be falling to my knees in an HEB if it happened on draft night.
Pick #10 (Dallas)

• 2018: PHI trades to PHX for pick 16 and a Miami first in 2021
• 2017: SAC trades to POR for picks 15 and 20
• 2014: PHI trades to ORL for pick 12, 2015 second, and 2017 first*

Strap in, this is a fun one.
PROPOSAL: This.
This is the pick in the lottery that I think is most likely to move, outside of maaaybe #3. That’s kind of awkward, because Dallas wants (needs) talent to help them win now and we don’t have much of that. Specifically, they need defense and a real starting center - if they can get both of those in one guy, so much the better. Keldon doesn’t move the needle for them IMO and we’re obviously not gonna give up Vassell at this slot. The OTHER thing Dallas needs, though, is something we do have in spades: cap room. Our old friend Davis Bertans has one of the worst contracts in the league for next season - $17m for a guy whose defense deficiencies make him unplayable - and while he only has $5m guaranteed in 2024, I think Dallas needs help right now to keep from running a real risk of fracturing their relationship with their best player since Dirk.
I think it’s POSSIBLE Dallas just trades this pick with Bertans and, say, McGee for, the TOR 1st + CHA 1st + a bucket of SRPs or something, then tries their luck in free agency (to go for Jakob or Brook etc.) before using their new draft capital to seek another trade if need be, but I think it’s more likely that we’d be looking at a full-on three-teamer here. There’s a lot of options there depending on which teams are panicking or not, and most of them I don’t find overly likely. Does Boston overreact and give up Robert Williams in a psychotic episode? Does Atlanta move Capela? Eh. Maybe, I guess, but I doubt it. How about Cleveland, though?
This is a pretty skeletal framework of what a deal could look like so don’t take it as absolute gospel. Three-team trades are often complicated enough that there could easily be a few more moving pieces were such a trade to happen.
MY EVALUATION: This could be a winner. I don’t think CLE has to trade Allen yet, but if they’re not exploring the option and asking themselves some tough questions about whether the pairing with Mobley is the real long-term answer after what happened against the Knicks, they’re not doing their job. THJ shot almost the same percentage on 3s as Caris Levert did last year on over three more attempts per game, and his defense, while not amazing by any means, is better than it gets credit for. Getting rid of Rubio also gives them a little extra salary to play with in free agency - it’s not much, and it’s not a great class, but I think there’s enough there for Cleveland to find a way to make themselves a better playoff team than they were last year. This also lets them recoup some draft capital that is basically nonexistent for them right now after the Mitchell trade.
On the Spurs side, even if Rubio is basically washed, he’s an incredibly smart and experienced PG who could do a lot to mentor the young guy that we’d be bringing in at the position, and if he needs to come in for a few minutes here and there to hold down the fort, that’s fine too - we’re not trying to be good yet. I’d be surprised if we don’t bring in a vet guard in some fashion this offseason regardless. Plus, we have to get to the salary floor before the season starts anyway; why not kill three birds with one stone on this trade?
Cleveland probably still says no. I don't know if they're quite ready to pull the plug on Allen. But I don't think it's that far off.
Pick #11 (Orlando)

• 2022: NYK trades to OKC for 3 protected first-rounders (DET (protected), WAS (protected), DEN, all 2023)
• 2018: CHA trades to LAC for pick 12 and two 2s
• 2016: ORL trades with Oladipo and Ilyasova to OKC in return for Ibaka

PROPOSAL: SAS trades TOR 1st, CHI 1st, and Doug McDermott for pick 11
Last year's trade is the easiest comparison to make on this list. Not perfect, still, but with the added context of what other trades in this range have brought back, I think it still works. The DET and WAS picks were fairly heavily protected (top 18 and lottery, respectively) and I don’t think it surprised anyone that the Nuggets pick is as late as it is, so despite it being three first rounders the overall value OKC traded wasn’t huge. Even with the Knicks having financial incentive to move off the pick, the package was pretty well in line with historical trades in this range. That said, I think people are viewing the talent around this slot higher than 2022’s at the time, so the offer might need to still be a tiny bit stronger. But one could reasonably argue the TOR pick alone is more valuable than anything else that's been given for this slot in the last 10 years.
Let's talk about the Magic a little more. Let’s say Orlando is pretty happy with what they’ve got right now, which I think they should be. Banchero was a very deserving ROTY, Franz is a bucket, and they’ve got a lot of promising supplemental pieces. They looked pretty dangerous at times last year, especially in the second half of the season when they were healthy. What they DON’T have is a lot of excess draft capital. They own Denver’s pick in 2025 which isn’t likely to be very valuable, and other than that they have only their own firsts. A trade like this allows them the chance to keep adding lottery talent into the future even if they expectedly become a consistent playoff team, and since they also have #6 this year they don’t even have to completely go without a shiny new rookie to do it. Doug is included because the return still felt a tad light to me and because Orlando was 25th in the league in 3PT% last year - it’ll help if they get a full season of Gary Harris, but if they want to make a strong run at the play-in, they might need a little more. Lots of mocks like them to take Gradey Dick here, and while McDermott obviously wouldn’t figure into their long term plans, if they’re making to look a little noise this year, McDermott is almost definitely giving them more than what Dick would as a rookie.
MY EVALUATION: This is my favorite slot to target and I think it's a fair trade for both teams. Orlando doesn't necessarily need to add two more lottery guys to their roster this year when they can conceivably make a push for the play-in with what they already have, even while still getting touches for their foundational pieces. The Spurs like McDermott and I'm sure would love to keep him around all else being equal, but I don't think they'd let him stand in the way of getting their PG of the future. It might take the CHA pick as well or maybe a bunch of seconds or something, but I think we have something here all things considered.
Pick #12 (Oklahoma City)

• 2016: ATL acquires from UTA in three-team trade (sends Jeff Teague to IND who sends George Hill to UTA)

Now this spot on the other hand... There's nothing to be done here. There’s nothing to be done here. Teague averaged 15pts and 6ast per game as a starter for 5 years in ATL with an all-star season in ‘15. Hill had slightly worse stats in 4 years as a starter in Indiana. Tre Jones plus the TOR 1st might be comparable value, but OKC doesn’t need a PG even at the backup position and they already have more future picks than they know what to do with. The scuttlebutt seems to be saying OKC will trade up if anything, which makes sense, and they certainly don’t need to do anything drastic after the improvement they showed last year and Holmgren still waiting in the wings. I’ve done plenty of looking for an angle on this pick and I just don’t see one. They’ve even got plenty of cap room and no bad salary to begin with. We’ll just move on.
Pick #13 (Toronto)

• 2022: CHA trades to NYK for a Denver 1st and four 2nds, who then trade to DET after the draft with Kemba for a Milwaukee 1st in 2025
• 2017: DEN trades to UTA for pick 24 and Trey Lyles
• 2013: DAL trades to BOS for pick 16 and two future seconds

This one needs some intro first. I have no idea what the Raps are planning to do and allegedly the team doesn’t either. Reportedly, Masai still thinks they have the ability to win now - I don’t know if that means actually winning a championship or just getting to the playoffs, but I think he’s wrong either way. Regardless, he’s such a bizarre trader that it feels impossible to predict what may or may not get a deal done. He overvalues his own players to an absurd degree, but he seems to do the same with Spurs players too. How we ever got a first rounder (that became Branham) for Thad Young and Drew Eubanks I’ll never know. So yeah, there’s certainly a recent history of swaps between us and them, one of which famously worked out amazingly and a couple others that very much didn’t.
Whatever direction Toronto does decide to go in, I think they’d be best served just making this pick. Keldon doesn’t make sense for them and we’re way past the part of the lottery where we’d even consider trading him anyway. But how about another direction?
PROPOSAL: SAS trades CHA 1st and pick 44, plus more future SRPs, and extends protection on 2024 TOR 1st to top-12 in 2024, top 10 in 2025. In return, SAS receives pick 13.
I wonder if something this simple gets it done. Maybe what we can best offer Toronto is flexibility. Maybe they carry this whole “I dunno” mentality into the season and then they’re a completely mediocre team at the trade deadline again staring down the barrel of a lost season where they probably still have to give up a pick to us that could easily fall into the 7-10 range. Would they give up #13 this year to ensure they can’t lose, say, pick #8 next year if their season falls apart? I don’t know, but maybe. With this offer, they even still get to make a couple other picks this year, and they’ve had success with late firsts and early seconds recently on drafts that looked a good deal thinner. Hell, looking at recent swaps for this slot, this even feels almost like an overpay - I think PATFO would have to be very sure about the guy they’re picking to give up a top-6 protected selection from a team in TOR’s current position.
This is the pick right now that I think is the most up in the air as far as availability - it could change dramatically over the next month depending on what sorts of conversations are happening in Raptors HQ. They could move up, they could move down, they could stand pat. I have no idea. It’s also the deal that I think has the most potential to come together extremely quickly on draft night; I could see Toronto having a couple specific guys in mind here and then scrambling to make a deal if they’re suddenly off the board.
MY EVALUATION: Raptors say no, but they think long and hard about it first.
Pick #14 (New Orleans)
Has not been traded in the last decade.
Sorry to end with a whimper, but yeah, I don’t see a deal to be made here. If they’re healthy they’ll be a team no one wants to see in the playoffs, and if they’re not, there’s nothing much they can do about it at this juncture. They’ve got plenty of future picks, they won’t want anyone on the SAS squad that we’d give up for pick 14, and there will absolutely be talent here that can help them immediately; they’re keeping this. I GUESS they might look for someone to dump Valanciunas in favor of one of the free agent Centers, but that would be kinda risky on their part and they’d probably want a return that’s less abstract than just the cap room and a few second rounders or whatever.
JUST-FOR-FUN PROPOSAL: This hilariousness.
I expect PHX to have better offers on the table for Ayton, but after his disappearing act in the playoffs I wouldn’t say it’s a certainty. Maybe they’re so tired of him that this feels like an okay return, and maybe New Orleans thinks they can unlock whatever potential might be left. This also gets the Spurs the veteran C they reportedly want; JoVal isn’t exactly an elite rim protector but he’s a heck of a rebounder and can stretch the floor on the other end.
Like I said, though, this is just for kicks anyway for the people who want a wild idea; I don’t think the Pels want Ayton and I don’t think they should.
MY EVALUATION: New Orleans says no because they're not insane and Phoenix probably does too. But it was a fun time in the trade machine.
So, just to recap...

• Picks I can’t see us getting: 6-8, 12, 14
• Probably not, but I could believe it: 5, 9, 13
• Sweet spot: 10 and 11

Pick #11 is the one I’d spend most of my time going after on the phone if I was an executive. #10 has its merits, especially because I personally like the Rubio idea a lot, but we can get a Cory Joseph or George Hill in free agency just as easily to fill that role, and the larger problem is that we’re already going to be dealing with a roster crunch that Bertans and/or McGee would exacerbate. #11 could end up costing nothing but picks that we have an excess, plus maybe McDermott, who we were perfectly willing to move at the deadline anyway and who would actually open up one of those valuable roster spots as well. I also don’t think there’s much danger in Dallas taking the guy we want if he is still on the board at 10.
Again, don’t take my proposals as any kind of hard offers; several of them I wouldn’t even support myself, as you can see. This is just meant as a quick-and-dirty (well, at least dirty) reference for what kind of value we might be looking at in these discussions.

Ik (M22) heb het al een tijd niet meer naar m’n zin bij het bedrijf waar ik mijn afdeling aanstuur. Ik heb al getekend bij de overheid waar ik ontzettend veel zin in heb.
Nu staat er een clausule in mijn contract die zegt; “De contracttermijn kan alleen middels wederzijdse overeenstemming vroegtijdig gestopt worden.” Nu is mijn vraag: mag dit überhaupt wel? Ik heb nu mijn 3e tijdelijke contract van een jaar. Ik hoor het graag!
Edit: gezien er best wat onduidelijkheden lijken te zijn, zal ik de situatie wat beter schetsen (iedereen sowieso al bedankt voor alle goede adviezen): - Ik werk al 2,5 jaar voor dit bedrijf, maar merk dat het metaforische ‘einde van mijn Latijn’ ergens in februari achtergebleven is (heb het gewoon echt niet meer naar mijn zin, akkefietjes met de baas etc. etc.) - De functie die ik bekleed is operationeel manager van alle afdelingen, voor een middelgroot softwarebedrijf. Bij de functie komt gewoonweg heel veel kennis over de inhoudelijke producten en ook een stukje kennis van coderen bij. Iemand anders op korte termijn vinden is dus ook gewoon een beetje lastig. - Er is door mij iemand aangenomen waarvan ik vond dat zij eventueel mijn job zou kunnen doen, en was haar dan ook in die hoedanigheid aan het opleiden, echter heeft de hoge baas haar ontslagen toen ik een paar dagen vrij was. Hierom heb ik ook niet heel veel boodschap meer aan het “we kunnen je niet eerder laten gaan, want anders loopt de toko hier vast” argument.
Zoals ik al zei wil ik eigenlijk gewoon los pleitos en met een frisse start beginnen, want het vreet reusachtig veel energie van mij merk ik. Wat is (als deze er is) de slimste manier om hiermee om te gaan?

2 days ago I got a text from this company called VISARTECH offering me a tech job and I looked at the website and I thought it was legit. After that I did an interview on Skype that was through text and I answered around 20 questions and after 20 minutes I was told I got the job. After that I filled out an agreement form with my signature and did a W-2 which gave them my social security Bank Account number, name address, etc. I thought it was still legit until the guy said I needed to buy an HEB card or a Steam gift card and show the back too. I did it and I know I'm probably a complete dumbass. I did ask him why and he said the accounting department needs to see it to make sure it works or something like that.
Now he's saying I will get the start up bonus for the job next week which will be $120, and I will call him tomorrow. I'm probably a complete dumbass and what should I do?
EDIT: I froze my bank accounts and credit. Thank you all of you for your help, sorry I took up people’s time with my bad decision.

Working at Heb has been a joy. And these little rewards and overall progress with work is sweet. No job is perfect but with the right mindset and dedication you can go far and set yourself apart.

We willen iets nieuw in de markt zetten .. wat denken jullie van deze propositie?
🤔 Wat verwacht je als bedrijf?
🤔 Wat verwacht je als kandidaat?
🤔 Wat moeten we toevoegen om sterker in de markt te staan?
​
Heb je interesse om zelf als coach (mag ook freelance 😉) een team te begeleiden of soms eens als gastspreker?
🔜 Laat het ons weten !
Zie je onze aanpak werken bij jouw organisatie of waar je vandaag aan de slag bent?
🔜 Laat het ons weten !
Wil je mee instappen in onze eerste junior Scrum Master Class en een jaar doorgedreven coaching en on-the-job begeleiding krijgen?
🔜 Laat het ons weten !
​
---

➡️➡️Onze propositie / waarom

➡️ We zien dat veel bedrijven momenteel op zoek zijn naar Scrum Masters, wat leidt tot een onevenwicht tussen vraag en aanbod. Als gevolg hiervan maken veel organisaties gebruik van freelancers om aan hun behoeften te voldoen. Hoewel dit op korte termijn het probleem kan oplossen, doet het zich op de lange termijn herhalen. Freelancers wisselen gemiddeld elke 12 tot 24 maanden van opdracht, wat resulteert in een gebrek aan stabiliteit binnen teams.
Als alternatief kiezen organisaties er soms voor om iemand intern in de rol van Scrum Master te plaatsen, iemand die wel de motivatie heeft maar niet veel ervaring en/of begeleiding. Dit leidt vaak tot een gebrek aan kwaliteit.

➡️➡️Onze aanpak

✔️ Interne medewerkers

Bij het begin van onze samenwerking starten we met het zoeken naar potentiële Scrum Masters die we via ScrumDojo kunnen aannemen. Hierbij richten we ons op de groeimogelijkheden van kandidaten op het gebied van vaardigheden, houding en kennis die we van toekomstige Scrum Masters verwachten. We houden ook rekening met de unieke kenmerken van jouw organisatie waarin ze zullen worden geplaatst.

We werken uitsluitend met interne medewerkers die specifiek voor deze junior class worden aangeworven. Dit biedt zowel jouw organisatie als de medewerker de mogelijkheid om na een bepaalde periode indien gewenst de overstap te maken naar jouw organisatie. Doen we niet moeilijk over!

✔️ Doorgedreven begeleiding en on-the-job leren

De junior class wordt begeleid door één van onze coaches, die de deelnemers van de junior class in hun rol binnen jouw organisatie ondersteunt. Gedurende de eerste 10 maanden is er elke week één dag speciaal gewijd aan de junior class, waarin de deelnemers van elkaar leren en nieuwe technieken worden aangeleerd door onze coaches.

Na een jaar zijn de deelnemers van onze junior class volledig klaargestoomd om hun rol als Scrum Master binnen jouw organisatie voort te zetten. We organiseren ook daarna regelmatig 'terugkomdagen' om de dynamiek van het eerste jaar levendig te houden en te behouden. Op deze dagen kunnen de deelnemers bij elkaar komen, ervaringen delen en blijven leren.

​
Hoe we het coaching traject zien, kan je verder lezen op https://scrumdojo.be/junior-class/

Beste mensen, ik ben echt ten einde raad en ben daarom op zoek naar advies.
Het probleem is als volgt: ik lijk enorm veel op een landelijke prominente politicus (tevens Minister). Ik lijk niet een beetje op hem: ik zou een dubbelganger kunnen zijn. Dat brengt allerlei vervelende situaties met zich mee. Soms vragen mensen om selfies of een praatje, dat vind ik niet erg want dan leg ik meteen uit dat ik niet ben wie ze denken dat ik ben. Maar laatst werd ik in de supermarkt een “gore laffe kartelhond” genoemd. Gelukkig namen omstanders het voor me op, maar een fijne situatie was het allerminst. Dat schelden gebeurt helaas wel vaker.
Het helpt niet dat ik werkzaam ben in Den Haag e.o. Omdat ik als consultant werk, loop ik vrijwel elke dag in pak. Dat brengt helaas ook nodige verwarring met zich mee. Zo stond een restauranteigenaar er laatst op dat ik niet hoefde te betalen na een zakenlunch. Ik heb geprobeerd mijn haar anders te doen, maar dat heeft niks opgeleverd. Ik heb ook geprobeerd aan te komen, maar hoe veel ik ook eet: ik kom niet aan. Wel ga ik nu naar de sportschool, maar daar noemt de vaste kliek me nu de hele tijd Job Retten. Ik zit er nu aan te denken om in een andere windhoek van ons land te gaan wonen/werken, maar dat vind ik toch wel ver gaan. Daarom wil ik graag horen of iemand nog een goede suggestie voor me heeft.
Bedankt alvast,
Gerton van Dijk

Zoals de titel zegt: iemand ervaringen met de master aan de universiteit van Antwerpen?
Ik zou deze willen combineren met een voltijdse job, een eerder plotse ingeving. Sowieso zal ik eerst het schakeljaar moeten doen. Online heb ik al wat zitten rondkijken op hun website, maar hoor graag op persoonlijke ervaringen. Hoe beviel de combinatie met werken? Waar ben je aan de slag gegaan na het behalen van het diploma? Een aanrader of toch niet en waarom? Zijn er zaken die je graag had willen weten voor je gestart was aan de opleiding? Literatuur die je aanbeveelt in aanloop naar de opleiding?
Een bachelorproef schrijven was al niet echt m’n sterkste kant, totaal ook geen begeleiding of handvaten voor gekregen. Is er voldoende begeleiding bij het schrijven van de masterproef? De lesinhouden lijken me zeker al een meerwaarde om effectief en kwaliteitsvol onderzoek te doen en te analyseren.

how is h‑e‑b with 2nd jobs? bc i got offering a job weekends for $20 an hour at the shooting range and i need all the money i can get for my new apartment…
do y’all think they’d let me? will this look bad on me? i’m making about $300 a week at heb (as a curbie trying to pick up as many shifts) but i can make an extra $250 just on weekends working 2 days 😭😭 which is like over $500 a week which would be amazingggg.
lmk how h‑e‑b has been w you about a second a job or advice:)

TW for mentioning my illness? I’m not sure if it needs one?

Also, obligatory I’m on mobile

I’ve been an HEB partner since 2021 after I graduated from college for my specific field. I worked in one store for a little bit and then moved to one of the facilities in the MWT space. I have a chronic GI condition, every now and then I vomit so much that I end up seeing blood in it, and I have to go to the ER for help. Every time I’d have to either call out or leave early for my own health as if I didn’t go to the er I’d be risking sepsis. (I’ve had it before from this.) This past Thursday I called out for this, I was already at a double 40. This happens at least 2 times a month, and they never excused them despite doctors notes. I was told I didn’t qualify for FMLA, and so I was just stuck with it. At my now former job I was a trainer, I’d stay late if they needed, anything they asked me to do I did. When I was part time they would make me come in and work 40+ hrs/wk. But they never excused me. So about an hour ago, I got the call notifying me of my termination. I’ve been worried all weekend about it which obviously has made my sickness worse. I was still planning on going back tomorrow. (Monday) We don’t work weekends btw, but I was out Thursday and Friday. I don’t know what to do, but my illness is even worse this time from the situation. She said she didn’t believe my doctors note because it was “too generic and like the other ones I’ve brought in before.” (No way I could go to the same hospital more than once I guess?) I also gotta mention that on the online program where you check your occurrences I didn’t have any? Idk how that works. But now I have lost my income and my insurance. I’m not doing okay. This is the only issue I have with HEB, their A&P policy. If you have any advice I’d appreciate it, and if you read all this, thank you.
TL;DR my chronic illness got me canned. A&P sucks. I don’t know what to do.
Edit to clarify: I was told that I didn’t qualify for FMLA because my “ailment was not covered under FMLA” I also found out that the online documentation program is currently only for the stores, so that’s why it wasnt working for me.

{https://www.reddit.com/SubstituteTeachers/comments/13l0pu7/school_making_me_make_all_the_food_for_lunch_today/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3}
Subbing at a high school today. Was supposed to be teaching Spanish but the entire lunch staff quit at the beginning of this week and did things to the remaining supply of food that made it, shall we say, inedible. So this morning the front office told me they would pay me twice my usual rate and reimburse me if I could make a run to HEB and get enough ingredients to make food for every student. If I wasn’t completely broke, I would have walked right then and there and never come back. But I need the money desperately, so here I am, stuck in traffic with $1000 worth of pasta, sauce, and frozen pizzas in my trunk. FML I need to find a new job.
EDIT: thanks for all the comments. Long story short I only got reimbursed for $300 today. The rest will be sent to me “pending board approval.” I am beyond furious. I stormed out after cooking and serving all the food, and am considering leaving a nasty online review of the school.
EDIT 2: Have decided to go to the media. Thanks for all the suggestions. Hopefully this school is exposed.