#agreements

[mavidin]

Be impeccable with your words. Being impeccable with your word is the correct use of your energy; it means to use your energy in the direction of truth and love for yourself. If you make an agreement with yourself to be impeccable with your word, just with that intention, the truth will manifest through you and clean all the emotional poison that exists within you.

Don't take anything personally. Personal importance is the maximu expression of selfishness because we make the assumption that everything is about "me." During the period of our education, or our domestication, we learn to take everything personally. We think we are responsible for everything. Me, me, me, always me! ...As you make the habit of not taking anything personally, you won't need to place your trust in what others do or say. You will only need to trust yourself to make responsible choices. You are never responsible for the actions of others; you are only responsible for you.

Don't make assumptions. We make the assumption that everyone sees life the way we do. We assume that others think the way we think, feel the way we feel, judge the way we judge, and abuse the way we abuse. This is the biggest assumptions that humans make. And this is why we have a fear of being ourselves around others. Because we think everyone else will judge us, victimize us, abuse us, and blame us as we do ourselves. So even before others have a chance to reject us, we have already rejected ourselves.

Always do your best. Everything is alive and changing all the time, so your best will sometimes be high quality, and other times it will not be as good. ...I do my best in everything I do and feel. Doing my best has become a ritual in my life because I made the choice to make it a ritual. It's a belief like any other belief that I choose. I make everything a ritual, and I always do my best. Taking a shower is a ritual for me, and with that action I tell my body how much I love it. I feel and enjoy the water on my body. I do my best to fulfill the needs of my body.

[nando161mando]

'The word girmit represented an Indian pronunciation of the English word "agreement" - from the indenture "agreement" of the British Government with labourers from the Indian subcontinent.

The agreements specified the workers' length of stay in foreign parts and the conditions attached to their return to the British Raj.'

From Girmitiyas on Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girmitiyas

[navigatingenm]

Changing Perspectives on Information Sharing in Polyamory

In the landscape of polyamory, where multiple relationships and diverse dynamics coexist, information sharing becomes a crucial aspect of maintaining trust, connection, and emotional safety. For many who enter into polyamory, especially those new to the practice, the assumption might be that full transparency is not only ideal but necessary. The idea of sharing everything with each partner can seem like the best way to ensure honesty and foster deep connections. However, as many discover, perspectives on information sharing in polyamory are far more nuanced and can evolve over time.

The Initial Desire for Transparency

When people first explore polyamory, there’s often a strong impulse to share everything. This might stem from a desire to combat the secrecy often associated with monogamy, where infidelity and hidden desires can cause deep pain. By contrast, polyamory offers the promise of open communication and the freedom to express one’s needs and experiences without judgment. Many find comfort in the idea that nothing is hidden—that every detail of other relationships, encounters, and emotions is laid bare.

This level of transparency can initially feel empowering. It creates a sense of security, where all partners are on the same page, and there are no hidden surprises. For some, this is the ideal scenario: a network of relationships built on complete openness, where everyone knows where they stand.

The Reality of Differing Needs

As relationships deepen and evolve, however, many polyamorous individuals and couples begin to encounter the complexities of information sharing. What once felt like a straightforward commitment to transparency can become more complicated as each partner’s needs, boundaries, and processing styles come into play.

For some, knowing every detail about a partner’s other relationships can be overwhelming or triggering. They might prefer not to hear about intimate moments or emotional exchanges that don’t directly involve them. For others, withholding certain information—even if it seems inconsequential—can feel like a breach of trust or a return to a “double life” mentality, where transparency is compromised.

This divergence in needs can lead to friction, especially when partners have different expectations about what should be shared. It’s not uncommon for polyamorous relationships to evolve from a model of full transparency to one where information sharing is more selective and based on mutual consent and comfort levels.

Shifting Towards Selective Disclosure

As partners navigate these differing needs, many find themselves shifting towards a model of selective disclosure. This doesn’t mean lying or keeping secrets, but rather being intentional about what is shared and why. Selective disclosure is about balancing transparency with respect for each person’s emotional boundaries and processing needs.

For example, one partner might choose to share the broad strokes of a romantic weekend with another partner, without delving into every intimate detail. Another might decide to withhold certain information until they’ve had time to process it themselves, ensuring that they can discuss it in a way that feels grounded and clear.

This approach requires a high level of trust and communication. Partners must be clear about what they need to know, what they don’t want to hear, and what boundaries they need to feel safe and respected. It also requires an understanding that these needs might change over time, as relationships evolve and individuals grow.

The Role of Agreements

To navigate the complexities of information sharing, many polyamorous relationships establish agreements around what is shared and when. These agreements are not set in stone but are revisited regularly to ensure they continue to meet everyone’s needs.

Agreements might cover topics like how much detail is shared about other relationships, how soon after an event or encounter information should be disclosed, and what topics are off-limits. These agreements help set clear expectations and reduce the potential for misunderstandings or hurt feelings.

However, it’s important to recognize that even with agreements in place, the emotional landscape of polyamory can be unpredictable. What felt comfortable at one time might feel overwhelming later, and what was once triggering might become easier to handle with time. Flexibility and ongoing communication are key to navigating these changes.

Embracing Evolving Perspectives

The evolution of perspectives on information sharing in polyamory is a natural part of the journey. It reflects the complexity of human relationships and the need to balance individual and collective needs. While full transparency might feel right at the beginning, many find that their approach shifts over time as they learn more about themselves, their partners, and the unique dynamics of each relationship.

Ultimately, the goal is not to adhere to a rigid standard of transparency but to create a relationship dynamic that feels authentic, respectful, and supportive for everyone involved. This might mean embracing selective disclosure, revisiting agreements regularly, and being open to the possibility that needs and boundaries will continue to evolve.

Conclusion

Information sharing in polyamory is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. It requires ongoing reflection, communication, and a willingness to adapt as relationships grow and change. By embracing the complexities of information sharing, partners can build a foundation of trust that honours both transparency and personal boundaries, ensuring that their relationships remain resilient and fulfilling over time.

[xtruss]

Trump’s Trade Contradictions Come Home To Roost

The Dollar is Falling Instead of Rising—a Defiance of Tariff Theory That Shows Investors are Losing Faith in America.

— By Peter Coy | Foreign Policy | April 8, 2025

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during afternoon trading in New York City on September 26, 2023. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

U.S. President Donald Trump has long been of two minds about the dollar. He has said he wants it weaker to make American products cheaper in global markets, but he has also said he wants it strong so it remains the world’s dominant reserve currency.

Those two objectives never made sense together. And now, as his tariff war threatens the U.S. economy, we’re seeing reality bite. Trump is getting the weakness he wants. The dollar has fallen 5 percent against other major currencies since his inauguration in January. But the strength he promised is nowhere to be seen.

Last year, one of Trump’s key advisors, Stephen Miran, imagined a so-called Mar-a-Lago Accord in which the United States would essentially require its trading partners to help bring down the dollar’s value. That would have been, the theory goes, engineering a devaluation from a position of strength.

Instead, the dollar is falling because of perceptions of American weakness. Investors are worried that in the short run, the trade war will cause a recession in the United States, and that in the long run, loss of confidence in the United States will jeopardize the dollar’s role at the center of global commerce. “The blowback of U.S. tariffs onto the U.S. domestic economy leaves the dollar naked,” Chris Turner, ING’s global head of markets, wrote in a client note.

Trump is right that a strong dollar is a mixed blessing. By making imports cheaper and exports more expensive, it hurts workers in businesses that compete in global markets. Trump has vowed to reverse what he calls the hollowing out of the American economy, and bringing down the dollar is, along with tariffs, a key part of his platform.

But a strong dollar also lowers prices for American consumers. And the conviction that the United States will preserve the dollar’s value is a key reason that other nations have been willing and eager to hold dollars as emergency reserves and to use the U.S. currency in international transactions.

According to a Brookings Institution analysis last year, dollar assets are 59 percent of global foreign exchange reserves, and the dollar is used in 58 percent of international payments, excluding payments within the eurozone. That’s even though the U.S. share of global economic output has shrunk to about a quarter.

That dominance gives the United States important geopolitical leverage. In a Nov. 30 post on Truth Social, Trump warned Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa not to challenge the dollar. “They will neither create a new BRICS Currency, nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty U.S. Dollar,” he wrote. If they do, he wrote, they “will face 100% Tariffs.”

Trump’s goal all along has been to shed the burdens of a strong dollar while keeping the good parts. Instead, burden-shedding has been far from painless. Import prices are rising, trading partners are retaliating against American exports, and Trump has pivoted from his first-term message that “trade wars are good, and easy to win” to warning that “there’ll be a little disturbance” on the way to greatness.

In past episodes of economic turbulence, U.S. financial markets did relatively well because the United States was perceived as a safe haven for investors—even in episodes such as the global financial crisis in which the United States was a main cause of the trouble. That’s not how things are going this time. The U.S. stock market indexes have fallen right along with those of Europe, China, and Japan. That’s more evidence that the United States is losing its privileged position in global finance. Investors and governments don’t want to hold dollar assets if they’re no longer a reliable storehouse of wealth.

The dollar’s decline to date has been smaller than the drop in stock prices, to be sure, but the surprise is that the dollar has fallen at all. Economic theory says that when a country raises tariffs, its currency should ordinarily rise.

Why would tariffs strengthen the dollar? Supply and demand. The tariff initially reduces American demand for imports, so fewer dollars go abroad. When dollars are relatively scarce, their price in terms of other currencies goes up. The dollar’s rise partially offsets the tariff’s initial effect by making imports cheaper. The economist Olivier Jeanne estimated in 2020 that tariff-related news explained about one-third of the decline in China’s renminbi in 2018.

The notion that interventions in trade cause offsetting actions in the currency market is hardly fresh. In 1752, David Hume, the Scottish philosopher and economist, wrote that restrictions on exports “serve to no other purpose than to raise the exchange against them.”

The reason the dollar isn’t rising in this episode, contrary to trade theory, is that fears about the health of the U.S. economy are putting downward pressure on the dollar, and that’s swamping the upward pressure coming from predicted trade flows.

Trump’s Mixed Feelings about the strength of the dollar aren’t the only contradiction in his trade policy. Trump has promised that tariffs will raise revenue (possibly enough to eliminate the income tax!) and also bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States.

But as with the weak/strong dollar conundrum, those two objectives can’t both be accomplished at once. If tariffs raise a lot of money, it’s only because foreign goods are still coming into the United States. In that case, tariffs won’t restore manufacturing jobs. Conversely, if tariffs do restore manufacturing jobs, it’s only because they dry up the inflow of imports, which means they won’t raise a lot of money. A basic economic principle is that you can’t have your cake and eat it, too (despite what former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said).

The Dutch economist Jan Tinbergen, were he still alive, could have told Trump that he’s trying to accomplish too many things at once with tariffs. Tinbergen, who in 1969 received the first Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, said that each policy target must have its own instrument. The intuition is that a pilot can’t land at the average of two airports.

(In a recent appearance on CNN, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the conundrum could be solved with sequencing: At first there would be a lot of revenue from tariffs, but it would be a “shrinking ice cube.” Over time, imports would fall and domestic manufacturing would build up. Taxes on that economic activity would replace tariff revenue. OK, maybe.)

Then there’s the perennial question of whether Americans or foreigners will bear the cost of the Trump tariffs. On paper, the tariffs are paid at the point of importation, but that doesn’t answer the question of who ultimately bears their cost. Bessent thinks he knows. Echoing his boss, he told CBS News in early March that China “will eat any tariffs that go on.”

But that all depends on which side has market power, economists say. If a Chinese producer feels it must swallow the cost of the tariff to retain its American customers, then it will bear the full cost of the tariff. That’s Bessent’s scenario. On the other hand, if the Chinese producer can get away with pushing the cost of tariffs onto its customers, then the final price will go up by the amount of the tariff, and Americans will bear their full cost.

The reality is most likely somewhere between those extremes. China and other exporters didn’t “eat” the tariffs the last time Trump was president. Americans did. “U.S. tariffs continue to be almost entirely borne by U.S. firms and consumers,” the economists Mary Amiti, Stephen J. Redding, and David E. Weinstein found in a 2020 article about the tariffs imposed in 2018 and 2019.

Many mainstream economists agree that tariffs can be legitimate tools in certain circumstances. For example, the World Trade Organization allows countries to levy tariffs to protect themselves from unfair practices by trading partners, such as subsidies. Some economists also defend tariffs that protect “infant industries”—ones that need to be sheltered from competition as they get going.

Trump, though, sees tariffs not as necessary evils, but as good in their own right. He told NBC News recently that the 25 percent tariffs on imported cars are “absolutely” permanent. He also likes to use tariffs to achieve goals far removed from trade, such as cutting down on illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking. Most recently, he threatened to impose tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil if Russia thwarts efforts to reach a cease-fire in Ukraine.

It’s hard to find a through line in Trump’s thinking, but some of his advisors have tried.

The aforementioned Miran, who chairs Trump’s Council of Economic Advisors, laid out in November a framework for at least part of Trump’s wide-ranging tariff agenda—the Mar-a-Lago Accord. It included an attempt to square the circle on dollar valuation, laying out how the dollar could be cheapened while remaining the dominant currency for reserves and transactions.

Miran argued that the dollar is overvalued because other nations are accumulating dollars to invest in U.S. assets, and that as a result American industry has become hollowed out because its products are too expensive.

Miran acknowledged in the paper that cutting trade deficits would put upward pressure on the dollar, not weaken it. His solution is to form a coalition of the willing to intervene to push down the dollar—against market forces—in a modern version of the Plaza Accord of 1985 that lowered the dollar’s value against the Japanese yen, the West German Deutsche mark, and other currencies.

High tariffs would give the United States “negotiating leverage” to get trading partners’ help in pushing down the dollar, Miran wrote. Trading partners that still didn’t get with the devaluation program would face high tariffs and would risk losing the protection of the U.S. military, Miran added, in a flourish that may well have endeared him to Trump.

Miran said any scenario for dollar manipulation would entail “a much stronger demarcation between friend, foe and neutral trading partner.” Bessent has used similar language, talking about placing countries in green, yellow, or red “buckets” depending on their willingness to comply with American demands.

This spring, the economist Maurice Obstfeld analyzed the administration’s tariff policy and dollar policy in a paper presented at the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity conference on March 27. Obstfeld, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund.

Obstfeld doesn’t think much of the proposed Mar-a-Lago Accord. “Exchange rate effects are likely to be short-lived unless the promised changes in macroeconomic fundamentals are forthcoming,” he wrote. Also, he wrote, “It is unclear why other countries would go along: few view their currencies as undervalued.”

By igniting a tariff war with America’s trading partners, Trump has entered a hall of unintended consequences. It is a disorienting place for an inexperienced traveler, with lots of dead ends, blind turns, and Escher-like stairs that seem to go up but are actually going down. The president could benefit from some expert guidance to find his way out.

— Peter Coy is a Journalist Who Writes About Economics.

[study-hall-hq]

The Restoring Trade Fairness Act (H.R.10127) proposes comprehensive reforms to U.S. trade laws to combat unfair foreign trade practices that threaten American jobs and industries. It strengthens enforcement mechanisms, revises how tariffs are applied, and expands tools for investigating harmful import activities. This legislation aims to level the playing field for American workers and ensure that international trade supports rather than undermines domestic economic stability.

[frothytundra]

When You Need Old Friends

Canadians are gobsmacked by the unexpected and undeserved trashing of the multilateral trade agreement between America, Mexico, and Canada that was made in 2018. We are reeling, and suddenly we don’t trust American politicians any more. At all. Any of them. Photo by Burak The Weekender on Pexels.com We aren’t making distinctions about political parties or between red and blue states. We are…

[douchebagbrainwaves]

WORK ETHIC AND INCUBATORS

Everyone knows these, because they're big consumer brands. They didn't care what language Viaweb was written in either, but they were worth it as market research. There were ashtrays everywhere. How tech-saturated Silicon Valley is not even a nationalistic one.1 That's the way to do that is to try implementing them. A lot of doctors worry that if you make a conscious effort.2 You'll probably get either preferred stock, which means increasing numbers of things we need it for. In the MIT CS department, there seems to be a successful startup, odds are you'll start one of those 10,000 hackers, the route is at least straightforward: make the search engine all the hackers use. There were not a lot of classes there might only be 20 or 30 ideas that were the right shape to make good exam questions.3 You can probably take it as a rule you can recognize genuinely smart people start to act this way there, so you have to be careful. That last test filters out surprisingly few people. 28%.

So who should start a startup, if you think in Lisp. It's not something you could hand to someone else to execute. Since I couldn't bear the thought of programming in another language this was 1995, remember, when another language meant C the only option seemed to be from the UK. They go out of their way to ensure their students are well supplied with contraceptives, and yet they're setting up entrepreneurship programs and startup incubators left and right.4 And I'm pretty sure that to people 50 or 100 years in the future. How to Become a Hacker, and in retrospect it was a good thing too, or a lot of people to sit around having meetings. But it was easy for the meaning to slide over into hiring a lot of classes there might only be 20 or 30 ideas that were the right shape to make good exam questions. If you work for a startup to try to do it right.5 They have to, or there's not enough stock left to keep the founders interested.6

Notes

And since everyone involved is so new that the stuff one used to be closing, not competitors. 4%, and anyone doing due diligence for VCs if the fix is at pains to point out that there may be the next stage tend to get the money.

I'm thinking of Oresme c. How much more dangerous than any other field, it's ok to focus on at Y Combinator.

I didn't care about GPAs. Later we added two more investors.

This is why it's such a different type of x. How much more attractive to investors, you should be clear. High school isn't evil; it's IBM.

It's a lot of face to face meetings. He had equity.

Most employee agreements say that Watt reinvented the steam engine. The word boss is derived from the compromise you'd have to solve a lot of great things were created mainly to make programs easy to read an original book, bearing in mind that it's boring, we love big juicy lumbar disc herniations, but in fact I read most things I find I never watch movies in theaters anymore. Even college textbooks are bad: Webpig, Webdog, Webfat, Webzit, Webfug. We're sometimes disappointed when a wolf appears, is this someone you want as an investor derives mostly from the 1940s or 50s instead of themselves.

Thanks to Nikhil Pandit, Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, Fred Wilson, Sam Altman, Patrick Collison, Abby Kirigin, Sarah Harlin, and Michael Seibel for sparking my interest in this topic.

[primepaginequotidiani]

PRIMA PAGINA The Guardian di Oggi venerdì, 28 febbraio 2025

[hiphopraisedmetheblog]

Universal and Warner Music Group Stocks Surge Following New Spotify Licensing Agreements!

In an exciting development for the music industry, shares of Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group have seen a significant rise following the announcement of new licensing agreements with Spotify. These agreements are expected to enhance revenue streams for both companies, fueling investor confidence and reflecting a positive outlook for the future of music streaming. Universal Music…

[rightscoop]

Trump's insinuation about the possibility of reaching agreements gives China a small respite

With regard to the first barren, the threat of President Donald J. Trump to impose a 10 percent tariff on Chinese products in retaliation for China’s role in the fentanyl crisis in the United States could be interpreted in Beijing as encouraging . Not only is it lower than the 60 percent tariffs that Trump had said that he would impose key Chinese products during his campaign, but also reaffirmed…

[carlocarrasco]

Israel-Philippines ties are essential! Major agreements signed!

For updates about Israel-Philippines ties, visit my website.

[buymarg]

Buymarg: Your Legal Drafting Partner

Need expert legal drafting? Buymarg delivers. Our skilled lawyers craft precise, legally sound documents tailored to your business needs. Contracts, agreements, policies, and more.

[xbhishek1107]

Doxguru.com is India’s trusted, Do-it-Yourself platform for making legal documents online. The process of making legal documentation is now made simple, quick and affordable. Doxguru is an Online Portal to apply for any kind Documentation & Registrations of Property, Agreements, Deeds or Legal Advice on Property in Bangalore.

[rightnewshindi]

अबू धाबी के क्राउन प्रिंस ने भारत को दी बड़ी सौगात, अब नहीं रहेगी कच्चे तेल की कमी; चार समझौतों पर हुए हस्ताक्षर

अबू धाबी के क्राउन प्रिंस ने भारत को दी बड़ी सौगात, अब नहीं रहेगी कच्चे तेल की कमी; चार समझौतों पर हुए हस्ताक्षर #News #RightNewsIndia #RightNews

Delhi News: अबू धाबी के क्राउन प्रिंस शेख खालिद बिन मोहम्मद बिन जायद अल नाहयान ने अपनी पहली भारत यात्रा के दौरान बड़ी सौगात दी है। दोनों देशों ने ऊर्जा सहयोग बढ़ाने पर जोर दिया है। इस दौरान भारत और संयुक्त अरब अमीरात (UAE) ने चार समझौतों पर हस्ताक्षर भी किए हैं। प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी से मुलाकात के दौरान क्राउन प्रिंस ने रणनीतिक संबंधों को बढ़ावा देने जोर दिया। परमाणु ऊर्जा क्षेत्र में हुआ…