u/fleyinthesky

I've re-read this series recently and, combined with just by chance seeing some posts about various Kholin characters lately, I've wondered if, on the whole, having the Shard named "Hatred" is the only thing allowing for confidence in who stands on the "good side" of the conflict.

I am not oblivious (at least in this regard - I hope), I do realise that ambiguity over who is "right" is an overt theme, with Kaladin in particular used as a vehicle for exploring this throughout the books, especially in Oathbringer. Nonetheless this tension appears to be left behind without concrete resolution, moving forward with the assumption that the Human Coalition is good.

For example, after the revelation that it were in fact humans that were dubbed the "Voidbringers" by the Dawn Singers, Bridge Four go back to Urithiru, shoulders slumped, doubting their righteousness and their place. Then Tara's betrayal and subsequent unlocking of the Kholinar Oathgate in Urithiru creates circumstance by which they are attacked and must fight or die, making it easy to brush aside philosophical consideration for pragmatism. They could have defended themselves in that moment and then reverted to their broader conundrum, but it was treated as though it were settled after that.

Teft tells Dalinar that they'll see what Kal thinks. Kal similarly sidesteps the issue while there is a battle (in Thaylen City) and then duly gives the matter a couple paragraphs of consideration in the aftermath. He acknowledges that it's subjective, and that his oaths and Nahel bond are based on his and Syl's confidence in that subjectivity, but offers little other than vaguely invoking the notion of people not being able to be held to the consequences of actions taken by relatives long since gone. With the massive incentive to simply believe in the spren and Honour's take on things - that of having his powers be contingent on his agreement - Kal drinks the Horneater-Aid. His fellow Bridgemen, many with fledgling powers from recently bonded spren of their own, unslump their shoulders about it and fall into the sky.

The most compelling argument comes from Syl who, in response to which race of people are actually Voidbringers, definitively (and seemingly correctly) states that "Odium is the Void." Therein lies the heart of my claim, "Odium" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in delineating the sides in this story. This particular Shard's Intent is to feed on the passion of those who would follow him, and bolster their spirit with innervation from all emotions, but especially hatred. Plus Rayse (may he rest in peace Beyond) is a dickhead. At the crucial time of the Coalitions' moral indecision he deploys Nergaoul to co-opt Amaram's army, giving them glowing red eyes (the guys with glowing red eyes are hardly going to be good are they?) and the impetus to betray with vengeance. If that wasn't enough, Dalinar does some heroic stuff and opens Honour's perpendicularity. The effervescent brightness (excuse the pun) of Honour, crowned with a halo of gloryspren, or red-eyed, red-misted, dying-horse Odium? The dynamics of the Shards' Intents clarify the "who's in the right?" problem just in time.

What if this third Shard on Roshar was instead Love? Held by the vessel Gayse? Bonding the soldiers in green with eyes of glowing rainbow?

We must admit that the older generation of Kholins are all cunts. Dalinar is a tyrannical warlord - albeit former warlord, though definitely present (well...) tyrant - while Navani is judgemental, manipulative, and just not very nice. Most of the Alethi aristocracy are horrid creatures, championing rigid class oppression. The humans are slavers of both Parsh and spren; the ancient children of Roshar are surprisingly empathetic and accepting, seeming to judge largely on merit.

Yes, Kaladin and Adolin are wonderful; Eshonai (pre-stormform) seemed swell herself though. Other than pov, other than ourselves being human, other than Stormblessed being a cool name, is there anything more substantial underwriting our confidence in who's right in this conflict, other than the opponent being "Odium?"

I am wondering if there is a principle difference between taking a Lactase pill and then drinking normal milk as compared to drinking lactose-free milk?

I have been drinking the latter, but it occurred that if these were interchangeable, it would be much cheaper to just take the pill and drink normal milk (as the delta between the price of normal and special milk is very large in my country). On the other hand, if there is even a small amount of downside in health I would rather spend the extra money.

I appreciate that this may be a rudimentary question, as it stems from my ignorance of how the Lactase pills actually work; I thank you for your time in answering my post!

I am perusing my contract for a full-time salary position, and I am unsure what to make of these provisions:

>Due to the nature of your role, we anticipate that you will need to undertake reasonable additional hours from time to time to adequately complete your duties. You agree, having regard to the Company’s operational requirements, the nature of your position and the salary paid to you under this agreement, that all additional hours are reasonable.

>An allocated shift can be cancelled by the Company providing you 2 hour’s notice and no payment will be made to you for this cancelled shift.

This would be my first time receiving a salary (as opposed to wage) but my understanding is that I would not be paid for shifts/hours, but rather the appropriate fraction of the total salary commensurate with the period over which I am being paid (e.g. if paid fortnightly, I would receive one twenty-sixth of the annual salary adjusted for tax et al).

How is that to be reconciled with the second quote stating if a specific shift is cancelled, I would not be paid for it? Shouldn't I simply receive the same sum as aforementioned, regardless of shifts worked?

The first quote, on the other hand, does seem to align with how I expected it to function- I would be paid my regular salary even when the completion of my duties requires some extra hours to be worked. Initially it makes sense, stating that "from time to time" there may be "reasonable additional hours". However, the next part seems to explicitly define "reasonable additional hours" as any amount; am I understanding that correctly? If so, is it not a bit extreme to unilaterally agree that any amount of additional hours, regardless of how many, is reasonable? I don't know if such a condition can potentially make sense in some scenarios, but I can confidently state "the salary paid to [me]" would not be reasonably seen by anyone as justifying any amount of additional hours.

1. I think it's reasonable that on occasion some additional hours may be needing to be worked if my duties require it (without additional pay/the pay covered by the salary), but I would expect this to be uncommon, with the role generally able to be carried out within the regularly stipulated hours. Is their asking me to agree to any and all additional hours being reasonable, reasonable?

2. Does it make sense that a cancelled shift can affect the amount of pay received when on a salary?

In concert, it seems like I would be accepting the downside of salary (having to work more hours "for free" sometimes) without the upside (receiving a stable pay even if there's no work needing to be done sometimes).

Thank you for your time in reading this, and any assistance, advice or clarification would be greatly appreciated.

• Species: Cat
• Age: 2-3
• Sex/Neuter status: M/Yes
• Body weight: ~4.8kg
• Your general location: New Zealand

My cat was in ostensibly perfect health until February of this year, once he was already 2 years old. At that point he got an eye infection; booked in to see the vet but had to wait a couple days (was in frequent communication with emergency vet to ensure that it was ok to wait based on symptoms).

Prior to seeing the vet, the symptom pattern was: noticed eye is wet > couple hours later squinting > couple hours later redness and some inflammation > over the next day red and irritated, cat clearly irritated also > the following day eye substantially better, cat acting 100% like himself again, but redness persists.

Went and saw the vet, prescribed antibiotic eye drops which worked well (eye back to normal after 2-3 more days, kept giving antibiotics for a further 2 days).

A few weeks ago same thing happened. Same eye, same progress of symptoms. Gave full course of same antibiotics and worked well again.

Now this latest weekend same thing again. Booked in to see vet again because of suspicion of underlying condition (Herpes based on what I read). Vet says she agrees it is very likely to be Herpes. Was told that it can't be definitively tested for. Vet advises to buy over the counter probiotics (and to reduce stress, though I have tried to optimise this cat's life as much as possible already so I'm not sure that I can reduce stress any further).

I asked about L-lysine (have since read that it may not be useful) and was told I can "get that too if I want". I don't want anything I am interested in reducing the likelihood of flareups. Told to keep using antibiotics when eye infection recurs. Was not suggested any antiviral medication, whether general or targeted eye drops. The bottom line was to just see what happens and if I can identify any pattern for when this eye infection recurs.

Based on what I've read it is hard to expect probiotics to have meaningful impact on his flareups of eye infection. Having said that, what I've read could be wrong. I don't know if I should buy other over the counter supplements which are said to have some benefit in managing symptoms (again I was told to get what I want to, but I don't have enough information to make a meaningful decision). I've read that in cases of the same eye same process/symptoms anti-viral treatments can be warranted. Should I ask for these?

As far as I understand, this is a common condition and though specific symptoms can vary, the symptoms he is experiencing are not atypical, yet I am finding it really hard to understand what the typical way of managing it is. What do you guys, as vets, do in practice?

Thank you in advance for your help. Also I realise you cannot give definitive treatment for my cat's exact condition having not seen him. I just want general information; I am fully aware of the potential for variation in efficacy etc.