4545 transit rd buffalo ny 14221

I placed this order on 2/6. I live in PA. The package has been touring NY for nearly a month now.

2023.03.20 14:56 Rachel_Silver I placed this order on 2/6. I live in PA. The package has been touring NY for nearly a month now.

I placed this order on 2/6. I live in PA. The package has been touring NY for nearly a month now. submitted by Rachel_Silver to mildlyinfuriating [link] [comments]


2023.03.20 03:40 jlanna101 [SELL][US ONLY] Massive declutter of 2022!! Mostly High-end: Pat McGrath, Natasha Denona, Charlotte Tilbury, Hourglass, Patrick Ta, MELT, Tom Ford, Dior, HUDA, Drunk Elephant, TATCHA, La Mer, Herbivore, Farmacy, Sunday Riley, etc

Hi Everyone! Thank you to everyone who has purchased from me already! Same process and rules. I will consider all reasonable offers (besides my high end palettes) and if you want even further discounted prices, you can check this post (generally 10% off the prices here). Please note that everything is crossposted and is first come, first serve. I do not do holds; the only way to confirm your items is by paying for them.
My feedback forms are here:
(Most recent: 2023 Pt 1)
https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/104k7ro/2023_muesce_seller_feedback/
(2021) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/p3q3h2/muesce_seller_feedback/
(2022 Pt 1) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/srspyq/2022_muesce_seller_feedback/
I always try to go above and beyond for my buyers and I think my feedback speaks for itself 💯🥰
Now, that’s out of the way, let’s get onto the rules! This is an absolute monster of a list so please go through everything carefully.
RULES/NOTES: PLEASE READ
Lastly, let's keep it fun! Please no drama- I spent hours/days on this post and I’m exhausted. I am one person and am doing my best. If there are any mistakes (wrong picture, blurry, etc) just let me know and I will fix it. I am happy to take any additional pictures and provide extra details. Please ask before purchasing! Also, please note that I will be shipping from Cali so PST time.
Okay, I think that’s it! Thank you for reading and have fun shopping! :)
*RV = Retail Value
EYESHADOW/FACE PALETTES
  1. Pat McGrath Celestial Nirvana $58 RV $82
  2. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Nude Venus) $40 Retails $62
  3. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Divine Rose) $40 Retails $62
  4. Pat McGrath Bronze Bliss eyeshadow palette $30
  5. Pat McGrath Bridgerton 2 $50
  6. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Trio palette $43
  7. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Blushing Delights $40 INSIDE
  8. Pat McGrath Bronze Borealis Quad $40 box is damaged
  9. Pat McGrath Ritualistic Rose Quad $40 RV $65
  10. Natasha Denona Retro Glam $55 RV $69 (has a nicked shade 'holly')
  11. Natasha Denona My Dream Palette $58 RV $69
  12. Natasha Denona Glam Palette $55 RV $69
  13. Natasha Denona Retro $55 RV $69
  14. Natasha Denona Circo Loco $90 RV $129
  15. Natasha Denona Sunset $85 RV $129
  16. Natasha Denona Biba Palette $60 USED INSIDE Full disclosure- this is an older palette so the formula may be a bit different/not as creamy and pigmented as a new one
  17. Natasha Denona Zendo Palette $48 (3 2 available) RV $69
  18. Natasha Denona Bronze $45 (4 3 available) RV $69
  19. Natasha Denona Sunrise $42 USED INSIDE
  20. Natasha Denona Love $40 USED INSIDE *Please note that this particular palette was notorious for inconsistencies so some of the shades are not the normal ND creamy formula
  21. Natasha Denona Glam Face (dark version) $43 RV $62
  22. Natasha Denona Bloom Blush and Glow palette $42 RV $59 INSIDE
  23. Natasha Denona Tan $40 RV $59
  24. Natasha Denona Coral $24 RV $48
  25. Natasha Denona Coral $21 SWATCHED
  26. Natasha Denona Ayana BNWOB $15
  27. Natasha Denona Mini Love $18 RV $27
  28. Natasha Denona Mini Zendo $18 RV $27
  29. Natasha Denona All Over Glow Shade 02 Medium BNWOB INSIDE $18
  30. Huda Empowered $50 RV $67
  31. Huda Rose Quartz palette $48 RV $67
  32. Huda Naughty palette $46 (4 available) RV $67
  33. Huda Naughty- swatched $38. Close up here
  34. Huda Beauty New Nude $42
  35. Huda Wild Chameleon Palette $19 INSIDE
  36. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk Beautifying Face Palette Medium-Deep $60 RV $75
  37. Charlotte Tilbury Smokey Eyes are Forever $50 RV $75
  38. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk 12 pan palette $45 RV $75 INSIDE (new but no box)
  39. Charlotte Tilbury Easy Eye Darling (6 pans)
  40. $40 for BNIB, $38 for BNWOB, This one is swatched for $35 here
  41. Charlotte Tilbury Filmstar Bronze and Glow (Light to Medium) $48- no box
  42. Charlotte Tilbury Flimstar Bronze and Glow (Medium to Dark) $48
  43. Charlotte Tilbury ‘Dazzling Diamonds’ $35 RV $53 swatched
  44. Charlotte Tilbury Sunset Dreamscape Face Palette RV $75 NO BOXES (discontinued)
  45. I have one BN for $50, one looks touched on the top right shade so $46
  46. I have 2 that are swatched/used with no boxes here Left is $38, Right is $40
  47. Chanel Quad in ‘79 Spices’ $50 Retails $68
  48. Patrick Ta Major Headlines Vol 2 $48 RV $58
  49. Patrick Ta Rose Dimensions 2 Palette $55
  50. Tom Ford Desert Fox $45
  51. Tom Ford Pretty Baby Palette 2 shades broken so $35. I can try to repress for you or you can take it as is
  52. GIVENCHY Le 9.01 $45 RV $65
  53. HOURGLASS Ambient Lighting Palette Vol 3 $40
  54. Melt Mariposas Eyeshadow palette $45
  55. Melt Mariposas Blush palette $35
  56. Melt Cosmetics Mary Jane $43
  57. Melt Cosmetics Smoke Sessions $33 (Had one broken shade at the right that I repressed)
  58. Urban Decay Naked Wild West $33 (2 available)
  59. Urban Decay Naked Honey (used and has 1 repressed shade ‘Amber’) $20
  60. Urban Decay NAKED Foxy Mini palette- $15 RV $29
  61. Too Faced Too Femme palette $30 (3 1 available)
  62. ABH Primrose Palette $40
  63. ABH Primrose- New but repressed 2 shades (‘Rose Water’ and ‘Fire Opal’). Although I did my best to repress, cannot guarantee how they will be during transit. $35 RV $55
  64. ABH Amrezy $35 RV $49 (discontinued)
  65. ABH Amrezy (used and repressed one shade ‘Litty’, no box) $25
  66. ABH Rose Metals $40 RV $55 (2 1 available)
  67. ABH Norvina $29 (2 shades were repressed)
  68. ABH Glow Kit Sugar $22 SWATCHED INSIDE
  69. Tarte Sugar Rush Sweet Tarte Frosted $22 (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades)
  70. Jaclyn Hill Rouge Romance 'Rouge Affair' SWATCHED $28 INSIDE
  71. Viseart Tryst 9 pan Palette $22 USED
  72. Jeffree Star Alien palette- discontinued and rare
  73. One still in packaging- make me an offer!
  74. One with no box. I’m going to say swatched 2 shades to be safe - make me an offer! INSIDE
  75. Jeffree Star Blue Blood palette- $30 INSIDE
  76. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar palette $30 INSIDE
Eyeshadow Palettes that are New but Name your price!
  1. ICONIC Sunset to Sunrise Palette
  2. True and Luscious Lucky Glow Palette
  3. Suva Beauty Protege Palette INSIDE
  4. PUR 4-in-1 Face palette in Medium Tan
Eyeshadow Palettes that have been swatched/lightly used- Name your price!
  1. BH Cosmetics It’s My RayeRaye
  2. BH Cosmetics In-Nude-endo INSIDE
  3. Violet Voss Pinky Promise INSIDE
  4. OPVbeauty Spotlight palette INSIDE
  5. Hank and Henry Living in Color palette INSIDE
PRIMERS
  1. Bobbi Brown Vitamin Enriched Eye Base FS
    1. One is BNIB $40, 2 are BNWOB $38
  2. Charlotte Tilbury Brightening Youth Glow $38 RV $55
  3. GLAMGLOW SuperMattify Primer $23
  4. Dr Brandt pores no more Luminizer Primer $15 each (3 available, only one has box)
  5. Urban Decay Primer Potion in shade ‘Eden’ $15
  6. Ole Henriksen Banana primer (used 2x) $18
  7. Tarte Timeless Smoothing Primer $25 (2 1 available)
  8. Too Faced Primed & Poreless+ $15 (box damaged and used 1x)
Mascaras Verification Photo
  1. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk in ‘Super Black’ $20
  2. Lancome Dèfinicils High Definition Lengthening Mascara $18 (2 1 available)
  3. Dermelect XL Lash Volumizer $10
  4. IT cosmetics Superhero Mascara $15 (2 1 available)
  5. Trestique Good Vibes mascara $6
  6. Trestique Good Vibes mascara + Eye pencil $8
  7. Petite n Pretty Fully Feathered Mascara $3
  8. Benefit Lashes all the Way set $15
Setting Powders
  1. ByTerry Hyaluronic Hydra-Powder $35 RV $60
  2. Hourglass Veil Translucent Powder $36 (2 1 available)
Highlighters
  1. Cover FX glitter drops in shade Aurora $12
  2. Cover FX custom drops in shade Blossom $12 (2 1 available)
  3. Cover FX custom drops in shade Halo $12
  4. SAIE Highlighter shade Sunglow $15
LIPS
  1. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar Liquid Lipstick Vault $70 RV $160 (Keep in mind to mix/shake before using as this formula gets clumpy) INSIDE
  2. MAC lipstick in shade Dangerous $8
  3. MAC lipstick in shade So Chaud $8
  4. MAC lipstick in shade Dozen Carnations $8
  5. Bali Balm sweet orange & coconut lip balm $6 (2 1 available)
  6. Primera Clean Berry Lip Mask $12
  7. DOSE OF COLORS lipstick in shade Date Night $8 (2 available, 1 has no box)
  8. TARTE shimmering lip paint in shade Strike Gold $5
  9. YENSA Super 8 Lip Oil in shade ‘On the Mauve’ $8
  10. JOUER Creme Lip Liner in shade pink champagne shimmer $8
  11. ABH liquid lipstick in shade ‘heathers’ $8
  12. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Grape Jelly’ $7
  13. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Maui’ $7 (no box)
  14. Lipstick Queen Nothing but Nudes in shade ‘Tempting Taupes’ (this is new but has sweat spots (does not affect lipstick just cosmetic) $8 INSIDE
  15. Charlotte Tilbury Hyaluronic Happikiss in shade ‘romance kiss’ $25
  16. Charlotte Tilbury Limitless Lucky Lips in shade ‘Cherry Dream’ $18
  17. YSL Slim Glow Matte Rouge in shade ‘217: Intimate Chocolate’ $15
  18. Too Faced Lady Bold lipstick in shade ‘Trailblazer’ $17
  19. Too Faced Lady Bold Lipstick in shade ‘Be True to You’ $17
  20. Whish lip balm in ‘pink champagne’ $10
  21. Tarte Maneater plumping gloss $10
  22. Iconic London Lip plumping gloss in shade ‘S*x Kitten’ $12 (no box)
  23. Lancome L’absolu Rouge in shade ‘120 Sienna’ $18 SWATCHED
  24. Bobbi Brown Luxe Shine Intense Lipstick in shade ‘Claret’ $18 SWATCHED
  25. GLOW RECIPE Watermelon lip pop $12 (no box)
  26. GLOW RECIPE Blueberry lip pop $12
  27. MELT Warm Nudes Mini Set $25
  28. Jeffree Star Velvet Trap in shade Confessional $12 (no box)
  29. Natasha Denona Lip Color 34 Fuchsia Red $14
BLUSHES
  1. Rodial Blush Drops $12
BRONZERS
  1. Marc Jacobs O!mega Bronzer in shade ‘Tantalize’ $35 (new but no box) INSIDE
  2. Huda Glowish in shade ‘Light 01’ $20
  3. ABH Powder Bronzer in shade ‘Saddle’ $18
  4. LYS Beauty Bronzer in shade ‘Motivate’ $10
Eyeshadow Liquids/Singles
  1. HAUS Labs Liquid Shimmer Powder in shade ‘Legend’ $8
  2. DOSE OF COLORS single eyeshadow in shade ‘Jackpot’ $5
  3. MELT eyeshadow single in shade ‘Amelie’ $8
EYELINER and BROWS
  1. Charlotte Tilbury Legendary Brown Tinted Brow Gel in shade ‘Soft Brown’ $18 BNWOB
  2. Benefit Gimme Brow+ in shade ‘3’ $12
  3. ABH Brow Bae-sics Deluxe Kit in shade ‘Taupe’ $20
  4. Laura Geller line-n-define in shade Black $5
  5. MELT Allday Everyday Eyeliner in shade ‘Baked’ $12
FOUNDATION/Concealer
  1. Pat McGrath Skin Fetish Sublime Perfection concealer in shade ‘L1’ used 1x $25
  2. BECCA Ultimate Coverage foundation shade ‘Vanilla’ $15
  3. BECCA Ultimate Coverage in shade ‘Linen’ Used 2x $5 (Keep in mind this is a thicker formula)
  4. Natasha Denona Transformatte foundation in shade ‘22W’ $15
  5. Too Faced Born this Way concealer in shade ‘Chestnut’ used 2x $10
  6. KVD Lock it powder foundation in shade Light 125 $20
  7. BareMinerals BAREPRO Performance Wear Liquid Foundation in shade ‘Shell 7.5’ $10 used 2x
  8. Bobbi Brown Fluid Powder Foundation in shade ‘N-070’ used 2x $10
BRUSHES
  1. MODA Powder and Soft Glow Brush $12
  2. MODA 5 pc Deluxe eye Kit $15
  3. LUXIE Glitter and Gold 9 piece Brush Set $30 (2 available)
  4. Too Faced Mr. Chiseled Contouring Brush $14
SKINCARE:
  1. Tatcha Water Cream $52 Retails $70
  2. Tatcha The Essence 2.5 fl oz (sealed) $40 Retails $65
  3. Tatcha The Essence (sealed) 5.0 fl oz $68 Retails $110
  4. Tatcha the Silk Peony $40 Retails $62
  5. Drunk Elephant C-Firma Fresh Day Serum $55 RV $78 (2 available)
  6. Drunk Elephant TLC Framboos Glycolic Night Serum $62 RV $90 (3 available)
  7. Drunk elephant A-Passioni Retinol Cream $50 RV $74(2 available)
  8. Drunk elephant Virgin Marula Facial Oil $45 RV $68
  9. Drunk Elephant Protini Powerpeptide Resurf Serum $58 RV $82 (3 available)
  10. Drunk Elephant TLC Sukari Babyfacial $58 RV $80
  11. Drunk Elephant Shaba Complex Eye Serum $43 RV $60
  12. Drunk Elephant C-Tango Eye Cream $40 RV $64
  13. La Mer Moisturizing Cream $45 RV $95 (Yes, La Mer is expensive af lol) 0.5 oz/ 15mL BOTTOM NO BOX
  14. Bobbi Brown Hydrating Face Cream $38 RV $64
  15. Dr. Brandt Time Defying Cream FS $30 RV $135
  16. Dr. Brandt Triple Antioxidant Eye Cream $18 (3 2 available)
  17. ELEMIS Superfood Glow Priming moisturizer $18 (2 1 available)
  18. Sunday Riley Tidal (new but beat up box) $35
  19. SUNDAY RILEY Light Hearted Sunscreen $30
  20. FARMACY Daily Greens Moisturizer $25 (2 1 available)
  21. Farmacy Cheer Up Cherry Eye Cream $18
  22. Grown Alchemist Detox Night Cream $18 (2 1 available)
  23. Lancome Lait Galatee Confort Makeup Remover $25
  24. Lancome Tonique Confort Hydrating Facial Toner $25
  25. Saturday Skin Glycolic Toner $18
  26. BeautyStat Universal C Eye Perfector $20 RV $65
  27. Biossance Squalane and Omega Repair Cream $38 RV $58 (no box)
  28. Malin + Goetz recovery treatment oil $30 RV $82
  29. Grown Alchemist Matte Balancing Moisturizer
  30. One BNIB $20, one BN but no box $18
  31. First Aid Beauty Facial Radiance Pads 28 count $10
  32. Alpha-H Liquid Gold with Glycolic Acid 100 mL $30 RV $54
  33. Glo Skin Beauty Pro 5 liquid exfoliant $28 RV $58 (box is a little banged up)
  34. Algenist Triple Algae Eye Renewal Balm $25 RV $68
  35. AHC eye cream $15
  36. Clinique pep-start eye cream $13
  37. Juice beauty Stem Cellular Anti-Wrinkle Eye treatment $25 RV $50
SERUMS
  1. Tatcha Dewy Serum $60 RV $89
  2. Estee lauder Night Repair Serum 1.7 fl oz $65 Retails $110
  3. Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Concentrate $50 RV $82
  4. Farmacy 1% Vitamin A Retinol Serum $40 RV $60
  5. Herbivore Bakuchiol Serum $40 RV $54 (2 available)
  6. Herbivore Emerald Oil used 1x and no box $25
  7. Biossance Squalane Phyto-Retinol Serum $50 FS RV $72
  8. Biossance Squalane Dark Spot Serum 15 mL $30
  9. Biossance Squalane Night Serum 1 fl oz/30 mL $ $35 RV $62 (no box)
  10. Algenist Elevate Advanced Retinol Serum $30 RV $98 (box is banged up)
  11. AKAR restore eye serum $30 RV $85 0.3 oz/10 mL
CLEANSERS
  1. La Mer the Cleansing Foam 1 oz $20
  2. Glow Recipe Papaya Sorbet Cleansing Balm $23
  3. Dr. Brandt Microdermabrasion Exfoliator $30 RV $79
  4. Kate Somerville ExfoliKate Exfoliating Treatment $50 RV $98 2 fl oz (no box)
  5. Korres Greek Yoghurt Foaming Cleanser $16 (packaging is a little dirty but sealed)
  6. Origins Never a Dull Moment Skin-Brightening Face Polisher $15
  7. OSEA Ocean Cleanser .6 oz/18 mL (2 available) $6 each
  8. Perricone MD Vitamin C Citrus Cleanser $15
MASKS
  1. Glow Recipe Watermelon Clay Facial $40 SEALED
  2. Herbivore Brighten Instant Glow Mask $30 (2 available)
  3. Glow Recipe Avocado Mask $26
  4. FARMACY Bright on Vitamin C Mask $22
  5. ELEMIS Superfood Veggie Mask $18
  6. Milk Makeup Watermelon Face Mask $18
  7. Dr. Brandt Vacuum Cleaner $20 RV $42
  8. GLAMGLOW YouthMud Glow Stimulating & Exfoliating Treatment Mask 1 oz/30 g $12 each
    1. Only 1 has box but both BN
  9. Origins Ginzing Peel Off Mask 2.5 fl oz $16
  10. NudeStix Lemon-Aid Detox and micro-peel $12
  11. TRULY Golden leaf CBD Face mask $22
  12. Avant 8 hour radiance renewal sleeping mask 1.69 fl oz $20
SETS
  1. Tatcha No-Filter Essentials $54
  2. La Mer Set $100 ($250 value) BACK
HAIR Verification Photo
  1. IGK Prenup Instant Spray Hair Mask $12
  2. IGK Mistress Hair balm $14
  3. AG Hair Care Fast Food Leave on Conditioner $18
  4. Moroccanoil Perfect Defense Spray $13
  5. Christophe Robin Daily Hair Cream $18
  6. Living Proof forming paste $12
  7. Moroccan Leave in Mask $12
MISC
  1. Sol De Janeiro Rio Deo Deodorant (sealed) $10
  2. Lilly Lashes Lash Enhancing Serum $25
  3. Eyeko Eyelash Curler $8
  4. Dolce and Gabbana The One Perfume
    1. One is 50 mL/ 1.6 Fl Oz $60 RV $96 (to be safe I’ll say used 1x)
    2. One is 75 mL/2.5 oz $80 RV $125 SEALED
  5. Dolce and Gabbana Dolce Garden Travel Spray 0.25 oz/7.5 mL $18
  6. Herbivore Coco Rose Body Scrub $18
  7. Velour Lashes in style ‘Caption This‘ $10
  8. MAC Lashes in style ‘B90’ $10
  9. Lashaholic in style ‘Kiss Me’ $10
  10. FENTY What it Dew Spray $15
  11. OSEA Sea Minerals Mist $18
  12. M. Greengrass dry oil spray $10
  13. TRULY Berry Cheeky $22
  14. Ice Roller $10 Back is cut here- idk how that happened but otherwise sealed
Jeffree Star Red Beanie- name your price
submitted by jlanna101 to makeupexchange [link] [comments]


2023.03.18 20:25 venusrian average stem girl whose really made for humanities is not doing too bad (in her opinion)

Demographics
Intended Major(s): data science/data analytics/computer science/cybersecurity/statistics (i applied for data science to most)
Academics
Standardized Testing
Extracurriculars/Activities (super mediocre but show my passion for coding ig?)
Awards/Honors (super mediocre)
Letters of Recommendation
i have absolutely no idea they could have gone either way. i know they both think im a sweetheart so perhaps they wrote some good stuff in them? i asked 2 math teachers. my geometry & algebra 2 teacher from 9th & 10th grade and my precalc teacher from 11th grade. (7.5/10)
my counselors recommendation im assuming is good because she constantly uses positive objectives to describe me! (also 7.5/10)
Interviews
didn't do any! my social anxiety is terrible and i knew it would make my application look worse if anything. i did do the optional video for washU though!
Essays
the part of my application that im most proud of tbh and i think its what has been carrying me throughout this entire process. i used the common app prompt #4 and basically wrote it within 1-2 days. once i had the idea in my head it just immediately came together. i wrote about a box that was full of rubber ducks & covered with sticky notes of quotes i had previously said that was given to me for my bday in 9th grade. discussed how it made me realize i have a distinct personality and allowed me to succeed in ways i never knew i could. tied it back to my love for math and how ironic it was that ducks, which are known for quacking, helped me realize the value in silence. i asked my counselor, english teacher, and a college professor and they all said it was extremely creative and a “strong” essay. (8.5/10)
Decisions (indicate ED/EA/REA/SCEA/RD)
Acceptances:
Waitlists:
0 so far!
Rejections:
also 0, but i expect to get a few this upcoming week LMAOOO
Pending:
- WashU (massive reach but its my top school & im really hoping!) + i had soo much fun writing the supplemental essay. i think it showed my love for both statistics & washu quite nicely
- suny bing
- northeastern (lmaoo 0 chance)
- colgate (really hoping on this one too bc my physics teacher who was fired after 1 year went here & i absolutely adored him)
- hamilton (massive reach)
- lehigh
- syracuse
Additional Information:
i didnt take a physical/life science class this year! so i explained in the additional info section on common app that the reason i didnt take one this year is because it didnt fit into my schedule as im taking 2 college-level math courses which i know are crucial for my intended major (i explained it a lot more eloquently on common app of course)
submitted by venusrian to collegeresults [link] [comments]


2023.03.16 18:50 someguy3 Test

This is a new writeup for Middlemak (renamed since my previous post). Named for the emphasis on the middle finger and use of the middle-finger-upper-row locations for frequent letters
Link to Layout heatmap
QWLDG JFOU: ASRTP YNEIH ZXCVB KM,./ 
The main design criteria was:
1) Use the middle-finger-upper-row position. The middle finger is a very strong finger, and the middle-finger-upper-row is a very good location for a common letter.
2) To reduce pinballing by putting most vowels on the right hand and putting most of the frequent consonants on the left hand.
3) Reduce the number of Near Finger Bigrams (NFBs).
4) Improve hand balance.
5) Keep SFB down of course.
6) A secondary design criteria was low ring-to-pinky-rolls. I find this to be an awkward movement.
7) Maintain Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
These are all discussed in more detail below. (Middlemak was based on Colemak so I’ll be talking in that sense for some of it.)

1) Middle-Finger-Upper-Row

The main purpose of this layout is to place 2 common letters on the middle-finger-upper-row. The middle finger is very strong and these are excellent locations that are easy to reach.
When you look at the letter frequency, there are 11 common letters before it takes a big drop off. The first eight letters go on the home row under the fingers. The next question is where do the next 3 letters go. Middlemak’s philosophy is to place 2 on the middle-finger-upper-row, and 1 on the index-finger-upper-row. Colemak places 2 on the centre columns, requiring a lateral movement that many find uncomfortable. Workman has 1 middle-finger-upper-row, 1 ring-finger-upper-row, and 1 index-finger-lower-row, a mixed bag.
Using the middle finger also unloads the index fingers. The index fingers can get very busy with 6-7 letters compared with the other letters 3. Especially when multiple frequent letters are put on them. I’ll give the distance stats in “Excessive amounts of stats” section far below which shows the drastic difference.

2) Pinballing.

I wrote about pinballing in length here. The short of it is that there is an incredibly strong interaction between vowels and the consonants, with 75% of all bigrams between vowels and consonants.
I’ll cover Colemak first to outline the issue. Having most of the vowels EOIUY and many frequent consonants of NHLMKJ on the right hand leads to a pinballing proble. I call this the NHLMKJ wall, it’s a wall of consonants that the vowels pinball off of
To reduce pinballing Middlemak does two things:
First Middlemak moves L off the vowel hand and to the consonant hand. This (and moving H) reduces the wall to NMFPJ which is much, much lower frequency. Or if the word starts with NMFPJ, it’s again much lower frequency.
Second it moves H to the pinky. H is a very unique letter because it’s almost always followed by a vowel. Moving H to the pinky means it almost always gives an inside roll. After the vowel, it generally continues to the consonants NMFPJ continuing the inside roll, or it alternates to the other hand. Rarely goes back to H. Generally only after the third letter can it start to pinball back to the vowels or back to H.
Combined, this reduces pinballing and increases alternating. It’s not entirely alternating, Middlemak still has rolls because it has N, H, and MKFJ. For N I find the rolls to be comfortable, likely because N is on the home row.

3) Near Finger Bigrams, NFB

NFB are bigrams that are on adjacent fingers. Too many or an uncomfortable arrangement can be an issue. NFB and pinballing are separate issues: NFB is the smaller pattern of adjacent fingers, pinballing is the much larger pattern of pinballing between all vowels and constants.
I’ll cover Colemak first again to highlight the issue. On Colemak there are extremely common NFBs with HE and LE/EL. (There is also NE/EN, but I find the HE and EL/LE to be awkward because L and H are not on the home row.) Pretty much all E bigrams are fairly high. I think you want to move common consonants away from E to reduce NFBs.
Middlemak drastically reduces the NFBs by moving the common letters L and H off the adjacent index finger. The replacement of F and Y have dramatically lower NFBs.
Looking at other layouts: Workman still has high NFB with L and E. Colemak-DH maintains L and H next to E. Many find the new HE roll to be more comfortable but it’s still a ton of NFB, and LE/EL is still there. MTGAP moved practically all letters away from its E and O and instead put punctuation there, a very good solution.
Middlemak does create some NFB with O placement. Namely OF, ON, and OM. However OF and ON are very comfortable, having the middle finger extended up feels pretty comfortable. OM is ok, and it’s the least common of those 3. The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like, but it feels ok. This is about the best location for a scissor-gram too, with the long-middle-finger up and the curl-index-finger down being able to handle it fairly well. (Just to mention Colemak’s EL/LE, not exactly a scissor-gram, I find is bad since the shorter index finger has to reach up and the middle finger is so long it’s already curled just to be on the home row.)
Overall, Middlemak moving common consonants away from E drastically lowers the number of NFBs and takes away a ton of awkward movements. Visually, I think you can see this pretty easily in the heatmaps.
(You can extend this concept to fingers further away, to include Colemaks HI, LI, etc. This can be valid, but I’ll focus on adjacent fingers for now.)

4) Hand balance

Hand balance is a difficult topic. The two most obvious metrics for hand dominance are 1) the frequency of the letters, and 2) the distance the fingers have to travel (which is different from frequency because you don't travel to the home-row). But any pinballing from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand doesn’t show up in those numbers. Having said all that, I’m going to look at frequency and distance.
Keyboard Vowel Hand Dominant Hand Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency Hand Balance ratio based on Distance Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP Left Right 1.00 1.43 1.43
Workman Right Left 0.97 0.82 0.80 1.26
Norman n/a Right 0.93 1.27 1.19
Colemak Right Right 1.14 1.15 1.32
Middlemak Right Right 1.05 1.06 1.11
Semimak Right Right 1.15 1.30 1.49
Dvorak Left Right 1.23 1.86 2.30
QWERTY n/a Left 0.77 1.06 0.82 1.22
Notes: Ratio >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. The hand balance ratios are based on each hand's frequency/distance, right hand divided by left hand. E.g. Middlemak: 51.2% right hand frequency divided by 48.8% left hand frequency equals 1.05. Colemak: 53.2% right hand frequency divided by 46.7% left hand frequency equals 1.14. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two ratios. I did this because having more frequency and more movement on the same hand amplifies the hand dominance. Or if one hand has more frequency and the other hand has more movement, that would mitigate it to some degree. This is by no means the most definitive way to look at it, but it's what I've managed to come up with. The "Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant" is a hard math thing to explain (that I hope I'm right about anyway). E.g. for Workman listing 0.80 gives the wrong impression the hand dominance is equivalent to 1.2 (20%). But it's actually 1.26 (26%), obtained from 1/0.796=1.26.
Middlemak is more balanced on both frequency and distance. When both are considered, it really adds up to being more balanced. Middlemak combined balance ratio is 1.11, compared to Colemak’s 1.32 or Workman’s 1.26.
Ratios can change quite quickly because both the numerator and the denominator (in this case, the left and right hand) can go in opposite directions. Moving L to the other hand does exactly this - changing both the numerator and denominator, and it changes both the frequency and the distance. So that one move really helps to balance out the hands.
(I’ll add the full data in “Excessive amounts of stats” for both frequency and distance, broken down to hands and fingers. The individual finger load is quite interesting too.)

5) SFB

The SFB of this layout is still pretty low, but it does come out a tad higher than Colemak’s. I’ve debated how to show this and decided to go with the full nuclear option. Data is from Mayzner revisited in millions (which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t have punctuation data, that’s what the 0’s are).
Keyboard Total SFB Left hand SFB Right hand SFB L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
QWERTY 185,270 125,920 59,350 1,105 1,661 54,502 68,651 34,166 3,970 21,214 0
Workman 78,147 29,268 48,878 1,105 3,712 2,806 21,645 27,338 5,037 16,503 0
Dvorak 70,570 28,306 42,264 0 31 0 28,275 12,142 16,265 8,229 5,629
Middlemak 44,698 25,806 18,892 1,105 1,661 2,716 20,323 12,415 3,134 3,343 0
Colemak 39,023 23,336 15,687 1,105 1,267 639 20,323 9,831 5,037 819 0
MTGAP 34,151 14,550 19,601 1,147 339 3,134 9,931 4,629 8,633 5,071 1,267
Notes: This is with index finger pressing C location, how I think most people type. Adding in punctuation the numbers would be higher, I expect they would increase by similar absolute amounts.
For Middlemak: You can see it’s not all that much of an increase in SFB from Colemak. Overall the numbers are low considering it keeps many Qwerty aspects.
On the left hand: The middle finger goes up with R and L. This was to allow more consonants on the left hand and use of the middle-finger-upper-row. I think the middle finger being a strong finger and comfortable reach can handle these quite well. The index finger is the same as Colemak.
On the right hand: The right index goes up a little bit, mostly with NY and MY. They aren’t as high as you may think. But the Y SFB and adding in NK/KN, NF, etc they do add up. It’s not all that much but it is more. I think it’s still easily manageable. (NY is actually not all that common, for example it’s actually less common than EU/UE. The exact Mayzner numbers are: NY/YN is 2,761 / 373. Compared to EU/UE is 878 / 4,158. MY/YM is 1,753 / 668.) The middle finger actually goes down, EO/OE is very low. The ring finger goes up a bit with UI/IU being more common than Colemak’s IY/YI.
If you want overall percentages (index finger pressing C), Middlemak comes in at 2.078%, vs Colemak’s 1.815%, vs Workmans 3.053%, vs Qwerty’s 6.264%.
Colemak really did a good job finding low SFB pairings of SF, DT, NHL, and IY. So changing 3 of those pairings does come at a cost. But it’s really not much and it’s done so that Middlemak can put more frequent letters to better spots, reduce pinballing, and reduce NFB. I think the SFB is in the same realm as Colemak, it’s still pretty low.

Ortho SFB

Keyboard Total SFB Left hand SFB Right hand SFB L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
QWERTY 195,687 136,337 59,350 1,105 1,661 86,462 47,108 34,166 3,970 21,214 0
Workman 79,561 30,682 48,878 1,105 3,712 8,206 17,659 27,338 5,037 16,503 0
Dvorak 70,365 28,101 42,264 0 31 1,591 26,480 12,142 16,265 8,229 5,629
Middlemak 42,816 23,924 18,892 1,105 1,661 14,888 6,270 12,415 3,134 3,343 0
Colemak 30,032 14,345 15,687 1,105 1,267 5,702 6,270 9,831 5,037 819 0
MTGAP 34,151 14,550 19,601 1,147 339 3,134 9,931 4,629 8,633 5,071 1,267
Notes: This is with the middle finger pressing C location, “proper” or ortho style. Same data as above.
Middlemak on Ortho actually comes in just a tad lower, but Colemak takes a bigger dip.
This basically moves most of the SFB from the index finger to the middle finger. On Middlemak, ortho takes out CT on the index finger and puts in CR and CL on the middle finger, which is only a tad lower. On Colemak, ortho takes out CT and puts in SC which is much lower.
I think it still works well. The middle finger is a strong finger and can cover most of these well. The one issue is that CL which is a two row jump.
I’ll break down the full Mayzner numbers:
First the index finger pressing CT/TC is 12,998 / 737. This is what ortho removes.
Middlemak Ortho puts in CRC which is 4,214 / 3,423. And puts in CL / LC which is 4,202 / 333. In percentages, CR is 32% of CT, RC is 26% of CT, and CL is 32% of CT. Adding it all up and including all the others (CP, CG, etc), Middlemak Ortho comes in at 87% of CT+TC. Just a tad lower.
Colemak Ortho puts in CS/SC, which is 644 / 4,363. CF/ FC is pretty much nill. In percentages, SC is 34% of CT. Adding it all up and including the others, Colemak Ortho comes in at 36% of CT+TC. A big dip.
If you want overall percentages (middle finger pressing C, Ortho style), Middlemak comes in at 2.16%, vs Colemak’s 1.669%, vs Workman’s 3.147%, vs Qwerty’s 6.575%. This is from Colemak-DH analyzer which says Middlemak ortho increases, as opposed to what I found that Middlemak ortho decreases SFB. I think it comes down to the data set used.

6) Low ring-to-pinky rolls. And the amazing inside roll from H.

A secondary design goal was to decrease the awkward ring-to-pinky roll. I find this to be the most awkward movement on the keyboard (for common movements around the home row). Middlemak greatly reduces this roll.
On the left hand: Middlemak’s ring-to-pinky outside roll of SA and WA is actually pretty low. SA is actually the lowest bigram of the common consonants to A. So SA and WA comes out to be a good design. Compared to Colemak, Middlemak’s SA outside roll is far less common than Colemak’s RA. (The exact Mayzner in millions are: Middlemak’s SA is 6,147. Colemak’s RA is 19,333. WA is the same for both at 10,865.)
On the right hand: Middlmak’s ring-to-pinky roll of IH and UH is very low. Vs Colemak: IO is very common and even YO is pretty common. (The exact numbers are Middlemak’s IH is 59, UH is 30. Vs Colemak’s IO 23,542, YO is 4,227.)
This next bit isn’t even a secondary design goal, but it’s worth mentioning. On the right hand, outside rolls from any of the fingers to the pinky H are very low. The common letters that come before H are usually TH, CH, WH, SH, and GH. All of those are on the opposite left hand. Doing the math, 97% of the letters before H are on the left hand. H on the pinky gives an amazing inside roll almost all the time.
Also worth mentioning is I think this also de-emphasizes the pinky a bit. First it limits the ring-to-pinky rolls. Second, the frequency of H is much lower than Colemak’s O. Third, the bigram HH is virtually nill, vs Colemak’s OO which is pretty common. None of these are massive, but I think they add up to de-emphasizing the pinky a bit.

7) Qwerty similarity.

Last but not least, this maintains Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
First, this maintains the bottom row (except N) and maintains Q, W, A, and S.
Second, this “keeps” the ASRT order. People learning Colemak commonly say that R and S are reversed. Technically it’s not because R was never on the middle finger to begin with. But it seems to be reversed in the brain. I think it’s two things. First ASRT keeps it in the same order, with R between S and T, even if R changes fingers. Second, I wonder how many people alt-fingered R typing in Qwerty, either all the time or for the RT bigram.
(I've also wondered if, for example, patterns like the very common ION simply being easier to type would make this faster to learn. I’m not certain about that though.)
Comparing layouts:
*Not accounting for punctuation changes.
Considering letters swapping on the same finger, this has fewer changes than Colemak. And I think “keeping” the ASRT order will make it even easier to adopt than the numbers suggest.

Downsides

1) There is a slight increase in SFB compared to Colemak. But overall I think SFB is still low.
2) There are a handful of NFB with R: BR, GR, PR, etc. Same with L and BL. This isn’t enough to change the home row to ARST. There is more below but ASRT has lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and is easier to learn. Also note these are much, much lower than the extremely high NFB that Colemak has with HE, LE, etc, (which to solve I paired tL and R).
3) I wanted a less common letter in the G location (Qwerty T location). I really tried to put a less common letter there, but it simply didn’t work.
4) I mention this above but to add more: The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like. This is a limitation of keeping Qwerty similarity (the M) and wanting to put O on the upper-row-middle-finger.. (MTGAP has a good design on this. It paired its EO with a lot of punctuation on the index finger to reduce NFBs.)

Conclusion

I'm really happy with this layout. I think it is a great combination of pretty low SFB, good use of the strong middle finger upper room position, reduced NFB and pinballing, keeping Qwerty similarity, and easy to transition to.
Honestly I’m surprised no one else has stumbled on this arrangement, since many people have taken to trying to fix Colemak’s issues and keep Qwerty similarity.

Some nice rolls and combinations

Although this increases alternating, there are still plenty of rolls left. Some I want to mention:
HE is very easy.
LD feels very good.
OU feels very comfortable.
OF/FO is very common and feels very good.
IO and ION are very nice rolls.
This maintains the nice IEN roll.
IOU is a redirect, but overall feels pretty ok.
YOU has a lateral move, but feels comfortable.
OU+LD together to make OULD feels good.
The very common TH, THE, and THE_ feel very nice not having to move the fingers off the home row.

Vs Colemak and Vs Colemak-DH

I made Middlemak to try to solve the problems I found with Colemak. I think all the items came out above, but as a bit of a summary and to compare Colemak-DH. I don’t mean this to be a hit piece on Colemak or Colemak-DH.
Colemak:
1) Colemak has an issue with high lateral movement with D and H. You see this especially with H and its NFBs, but D isn’t the best either.
2) Colemak’s right index finger is overworked. It just has too much to do with N, H, and L.
3) Colemak has a pinballing issue due to placing most vowels and many common consonants on the same hand.
4) Colemak has a ton of NFB with EL/LE and HE.
5) Colemak has a hand balance issue. It places a lot of emphasis on the right hand with the vowels and several common consonants. (Hand dominance and pinballing are technically separate items.)
6) Colemak’s awkward ring-to-pinky rolls. Notably IO, YO (especially when typing YOU), and also RA on the right hand.
7) Not exactly a direct issue with Colemak, but Middlemak is easier to learn coming from Qwerty. Many new users want to ‘keep’ the order of ASRT instead of ‘reversing’ S and R.
Middlemak is a pretty low increase in SFBs and it fixes those issues.
Colemak DH:
Colemak-DH solves 1) the lateral movements. But it doesn’t solve 2) the right index finger overwork, 3) the pinballing, 4) the NFBs 5) the hand balance, 6) the awkward ring-to-pinky rolls, and 7) coming from Qwerty it’s pretty much a full change layout. Shortcuts are accessible, but they move (well paste is the same. Undo, cut, and copy move.)

Option: Swap A and H

This gives:
QWLDG JFOU: HSRTP YNEIA ZXCVB KM,./ 
The good: This is good if you want to put all the vowels and most consonants on opposite hands. Overall this increases alternating. More alternating comes from moving A, it actually decreases alternating with H, mostly because TH is very common. On normal Middlemak, A and H together have 48% of all their bigrams on the opposite hand. With the AH swap, that goes to 59% of bigrams on the opposite hand.
The neutral: On the left hand, the ring-to-pinky outside roll of SH is slightly higher, but in a similar range. Data from Mayzner is SH is 8,889, and original is SA is 6,147.
The bad: On the right hand, the ring-to-pinky outside roll is higher with IA and UA coming in at 8,072 and 3,844, vs original IH and UH of 59 and 30. On both the right and left hand, the all-fingers-to-pinky outside roll is higher.
The complicated: This option decreases the pinky-to-all-fingers rolls inside rolls on both hands. It increases the all-fingers-to-pinky rolls outside rolls. The overall sum of inside rolls plus outside rolls is lower. In short: this lowers inside rolls, increases outside rolls, with an overall sum that is lower.
Basically stick to the original if you want to lower ring-to-pinky movement, lower outside rolls, and easier to learn.
So I can’t recommend this option for most people. I put it as an OK option if someone really wants to increase alternating hands.

Excessive amount of stats

This section has details on distance reductions, hand balance based on frequency, hand balance based on distance, and raw distance numbers. I'm going to give lots of charts. You don’t need to read this all, but these are all the details.

Distance reduction from Qwerty

Keyboard Distance Distance Distance
(km) (miles) (% reduction from Qwerty)
MTGAP 2.592 1.611 46.3%
Workman 2.613 1.624 45.9%
Norman 2.615 1.625 45.9%
Colemak 2.616 1.625 45.8%
Middlemak 2.710 1.684 43.9%
Semimak 2.739 1.702 43.3%
Dvorak 2.813 1.748 41.8%
QWERTY 4.829 3.001 0%
*Source: 62 page / 31k word compilation. Left index used to press Qwerty C location. Includes punctuation.
Middlemak’s distance reduction is good, kost alt keyboards are in the same range. It’s a tad worse on distance than some others because putting O off the home row increases distance, with the O being more frequent. (MTGAP puts O off the home row, but has all the punctuation on the diagonals to decrease distance.)

All Finger Distances

This is the raw distance travelled in metres. Percentages rely on the total distance travelled, which changes between layouts so it's not comparable. Note that distance is different from frequency. The fingers don't move for the home row, the distance travelled is to the other letters.
Keyboard L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky L Total R Total Total
MTGAP 293 116 413 246 667 320 219 318 1068 m 1524 m 2592 m
Workman 123 232 330 753 505 200 146 325 1437 m 1176 m 2613 m
Norman 127 127 223 674 525 377 244 319 1150 m 1465 m 2615 m
Colemak 130 127 116 842 747 200 141 315 1214 m 1402 m 2616 m
Middlemak 134 127 207 847 440 460 189 306 1314 m 1396 m 2710 m
Semimak 238 237 326 390 506 200 450 393 1191 m 1549 m 2739 m
Dvorak 205 54 34 692 753 285 395 396 984 m 1829 m 2813 m
QWERTY 130 127 670 1413 1169 452 450 418 2340 m 2489 m 4829 m
*All distances in metres. Same source as table above.
First, you can see Qwerty’s distances are extremely high. All the alternatives make big reductions.
Notice that the index fingers move way more than the other fingers.
Middlemak balances this out decently and moves more distance to both middle fingers. The left index finger is still a bit high because it has D off the home row (this brings it back to the discussion of where does the 11th letter go). Middlemak’s left index is slightly higher than Colemak’s even though they have the same letters because the row stagger technically puts D on a slight diagonal. A technicality really.
The right index finger is low, a good feature that the index finger next to the vowels doesn’t have to travel much. Compared to Colemak, Middlemak’s movement is 41% lower than Colemaks.

Zoom in on index fingers

Keyboard Distance Distance Total Index Finger % of total distance
L Index R Index L+R Index L+R Index
MTGAP 246 667 913 m 35%
Workman 753 505 1259 m 48%
Norman 674 525 1200 m 46%
Colemak 842 747 1589 m 61%
Middlemak 847 440 1287 m 47%
Semimak 390 506 896 m 33%
Dvorak 692 753 1445 m 51%
QWERTY 1413 1169 2582 m 53%
Here you can really see how much work the index fingers do. Middlemak’s sum of the index fingers is nice and low.
You can also look at the percentage of travel with the index finger. Middlemak’s is down at 47% - meaning the index fingers are responsible for 47% of all the distance travelled. On Colemak the index fingers account for 61% the distance travelled, quite a big difference relatively. Workman and Norman are close to Middlemak. MTGAP and Semimak are very low. Dvorak and Qwerty percentages are a bit deceiving though - the higher index finger distances are hidden by the higher total amount of distance.
So even when Middlemak’s left index finger doesn’t have a reduction in distance, the total index finger distance is still significantly reduced.

Hand Balance based on Distance

This is the distance in percentages for all the fingers (unlike the raw distances in metres above) so that I can add them up to look at hand balance.
Keyboard Left hand Right hand Hand Balance Ratio L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
MTGAP 41.2* 58.8 1.43 11.3 4.5 15.9 9.5 25.7 12.3 8.4 12.3
Workman 55.0 45.0* 0.82 4.7 8.9 12.6 28.8 19.3 7.6 5.6 12.5
Norman 44.0 56.0 1.27 4.8 4.8 8.5 25.8 20.1 14.4 9.3 12.2
Colemak 46.4 53.6* 1.15 5.0 4.8 4.4 32.2 28.6 7.6 5.4 12.0
Middlemak 48.5 51.5* 1.06 5.0 4.7 7.6 31.2 16.3 17.0 7.0 11.3
Semimak 43.5 56.5* 1.30 8.7 8.7 11.9 14.2 18.5 7.3 16.4 14.4
Dvorak 35.0* 65.0 1.86 7.3 1.9 1.2 24.6 26.8 10.1 14.0 14.1
QWERTY 48.5 51.5 1.06 2.7 2.6 13.9 29.3 24.2 9.4 9.3 8.7
Notes: * indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no clear vowel hand). The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that highlights the differences between the layouts better. Ratio >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant.
I think the raw distances are better for comparison between layouts, but some people like percentages. I used this mostly to calculate hand balance.
You can see Middlemak spreads out the work. The pinkies are low, ring fingers are reasonable, middle takes on more, and the indexes have most of the distances.

Hand Balance based on Frequency

Now we’re shifting to frequency. You can see the data for all the fingers, this is enlightening on its own. I also add them up to look at the hand balance.
Keyboard Left hand Right hand Hand Balance Ratio L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
MTGAP 49.9* 50.0 1.00 10.8 8.4 18.8 11.9 16.3 14.5 9.8 9.4
Workman 50.7 49.3* 0.97 9.3 10.1 11.1 20.2 15.2 14.9 9.7 9.5
Norman 51.7 48.3 0.93 9.3 8.3 15.4 18.7 15.2 13.2 11.8 8.1
Colemak 46.7 53.2* 1.14 9.4 7.7 8.2 21.4 19.4 14.9 9.1 9.8
Middlemak 48.8 51.2* 1.05 9.4 8.3 9.7 21.4 13.7 19.6 9.9 8.0
Semimak 46.6 53.4* 1.15 9.7 10.1 11.8 15.0 12.2 14.9 15.6 10.7
Dvorak 44.8* 55.3 1.23 10.3 8.1 12.2 14.2 17.2 13.4 13.0 11.7
QWERTY 56.5 43.5 0.77 9.4 8.3 15.4 23.4 18.8 8.4 11.8 4.5
* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). Ratio of >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant.
The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that highlights the differences between the layouts better than the percentages. I know it doesn't add up to 100%, the analyzer is doing some rounding or something behind the scenes, I'm not going to round any further.
E is so common that it bumps up any finger it’s on.
Middlemak’s left middle finger takes on a bit more work. The left index is still high because of D. The right index is notably lower taking off common letters. The right middle takes on more of the work with O. And the right pinky is lower too with the H there.

Hand Balance Distance + Frequency

This is the same chart that was above, just for a summary.
Keyboard Dominant Hand Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency Hand Balance ratio based on Distance Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP Right 1.00 1.43 1.43
Workman Left 0.97 0.82 0.80 1.26
Norman Right 0.93 1.27 1.19
Colemak Right 1.14 1.15 1.32
Middlemak Right 1.05 1.06 1.11
Semimak Right 1.15 1.30 1.49
Dvorak Right 1.23 1.86 2.30
QWERTY Left 0.77 1.06 0.82 1.22
1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two.

Frequency-off-home-row (F.O.H.R.)

At the risk of too much information, another way to look at this is the frequency that’s off-home-row. I.e. the frequency that is not under the fingers.
Distances weigh the keys differently, while frequency-off-home-row levels that field. This should be read in conjunction with distance. Neither is better than the other, it’s just a different measurement.
Keyboard L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky L+R Index Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR
MTGAP 4.0 2.0 7.2 4.1 10.8 5.8 3.6 3.8 14.9% 36%
Workman 1.5 3.9 5.6 11.5 8.8 3.3 2.5 2.7 20.3% 51%
Norman 1.5 2.1 3.8 10.0 8.8 6.4 4.6 2.6 18.8% 47%
Colemak 1.6 2.1 2.0 12.7 13.0 3.3 2.3 2.6 25.7% 65%
Middlemak 1.6 2.1 4.1 12.7 7.3 8.0 3.1 2.5 20.0% 48%
Semimak 3.5 4.5 5.4 6.3 8.4 3.3 7.8 3.9 14.7% 34%
Dvorak 2.5 0.9 0.6 11.7 11.7 4.7 6.6 5.5 23.4% 53%
QWERTY 1.6 2.1 11.6 21.4 18.6 7.5 7.8 4.5 40.0% 53%
I did this after noticing, on Colemak, that my right index finger moves off the home row a lot. For Colemak the left index finger has more distance, but the right index finger has more frequency-off-home-row. The long distance to B on the left hand skews the distance travelled.
The effect is similar on most of the layouts: FOHR tones down the left hand dominance and bumps up the right hand dominance. With Colemak the frequency of H and L is enough to actually flip them. This is more noticeable with layouts that keep Qwerty’s B (which is just frequent enough to skew things), layouts that change the letter to a less common one shift less.
Also insightful is “Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR”. It shows that on Middlemak the index fingers do 48% of all frequency-off-home-row, quite reasonable. Whereas on Colemak the index fingers have 65% of all frequency-off-home-row, very high. Workman is just a tad higher with the index fingers doing 51% of frequency-off-home-row. Dvorak’s and Qwerty’s 53% for index fingers is a bit deceiving though, it appears low but that's because the overall total FOHR is much higher.
This is similar to “Zoom in on the index fingers”, but this shows an even greater difference between Middlemak and Colemak. Recall Middlemaks was 47% and Colemaks was 61% for the index finger % of total distance. Same thing, when the distances to the diagonals are levelled out, the frequency stands out.

Excessive amount of detail on letters

You really don’t need to read this, mostly if you have any lingering or specific Q on specific letters.

D position and why not curl?

Where to place that 11th letter is difficult, it’s either the ring finger or index finger. Many find the ring finger to not be very dexterous for such a frequent letter. So pairing D with T on the index finger works very well for low SFB and to put it on the consonant hand.
Why on the upper-row instead of middle-row? First, I think most people find it easier to reach up and down rather than laterally. Second, it works very well with the LD roll.
Why not the bottom row? I want to leave the bottom row the same as Qwerty for ease of transition and to leave the shortcuts of cut-copy-paste the same. I also think C and M (the curl locations) are already near perfect frequencies for those locations. Those are the middle of the pack frequencies, which are perfect for the index fingers - which cover 6 to 7 letters.
I previously said that I’m not a fan of Colemak’s L position, which is the same upper-row-index-finger. But Colemak’s L has a ton of NFBs with the vowels, especially with E but also with all the other vowels. Looking at the whole hand, 62% of L bigrams are on the same hand. I think that’s the source of discomfort. But with Middlemak’s D, only 22% of bigrams are on the same hand, and 78% are on the opposite hand. So Middlemak has far lower same-hand-gymnastics.

The R and L position

L pairs well with R for low SFB. After finessing with options, the home row can be arranged to ASRT and L can be put above R on the middle-finger-upper-row, a very desirable location.
I’m sure the R and S location will attract attention, so I’ll discuss it more here. Whether to go with ASRT with L above the R, or ARST with L above the S was not the simplest choice.
[Note that Colemak had to go with ARST because of F on the middle-finger-upper-row. RF/FR is more common than SF/FS.]

ASRT with L above R:

The pros of ASRT is it gives fewer SFB, with LRL being less than half as common as SL/LS. It also gives fewer ring-to-pinky-rolls with SA being far less common than Colemak’s RA. It also makes it much easier to learn from Qwerty.
The cons is that the R position leads to more NFB with the index finger. Most of these feel ok but RD, GR, BR are not so good. These aren’t super common, but they are there. PR gives the commonly disliked lateral NFB, but I think it’s relatively ok for the frequency - it’s not super common. RS creates an outside roll, but I’d rather have the RS on Middlemak’s middle-to-ring fingers than Colemak’s RA on the ring-to-pinky fingers. Colemak’s RA is much more common than Middlemak’s RS too.

ARST with L above S

The pros of ARST is that it gives an inside roll of RS. It also separates R from the NFB letters on the index finger, which do add up. However, I’m trying to resolve the NFBs of Colemak’s right hand H and L with E which is a magnitude larger, in addition to the pinballing that it creates which requires moving L.
The cons with ARST is that it gives more SFB. It’s not overly much, but it is there. It also gives a lot of ring-to-pinky outside rolls with RA. And finally this makes it much harder to learn coming from Qwerty.

Verdict: ASRT

None of these are huge deal breakers for one or the other. I went with lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and much easier to learn. At the cost of some NFB on the index finger and inside roll of RS.
(If someone comes from Colemak and wants ARST, they can. It's not a humongous downside to do that. Mostly the more common RA ring-to-pinky roll and slightly more SFB of SD/DS.)
(I hope people don’t think that I’m overly focused on keeping S in the Qwerty location. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t have kept it. For this layout, it does work better with ASRT. If it didn’t work I would have changed it. For example, I wanted to keep G on its Qwerty location. But it’s better to move it so I didn’t shy away from changing.)

P and G location

It’s better to move G than keep it in its Qwerty location.
P and G are pretty much the same frequency, so it doesn’t matter in that sense.
P has a SFB with T, and it has common bigrams of PR, SP, and even PA. Those work better with P on the middle row. There is PL, but the ones above outweigh it.
G has a bigram with NG. With N on the opposite hand, that means G can go on the worse diagonal spot. There is GR, but PR is far more common.

O location

O and E together give very low SFB. This is a great opportunity to put them together. The strong middle finger only has 3 keys, so it can handle two very frequent letters.

U, Y and F locations

U works pretty well with I, the SFB are reasonably low. This location also creates a nice OU and YOU roll.
Y goes to the index finger, which actually works pretty well. I broke down the numbers in SFB section.
F goes to the right hand index finger, because putting P or G on the right hand gives too many SFB with M and N. The F location works quite well for both moderate frequency and low SFB. It has a lot of NFB with OF/FO, so placing it next to O makes a comfortable roll.
submitted by someguy3 to u/someguy3 [link] [comments]


2023.03.12 04:32 someguy3 Test

This is a new writeup for Middlemak (renamed since my previous post). Named for the emphasis on the middle finger and use of the middle-finger-upper-row locations for frequent letters
Link to Layout heatmap
QWLDG JFOU: ASRTP YNEIH ZXCVB KM,./ 
The main design criteria was:
1) Use the middle-finger-upper-row position. The middle finger is a very strong finger, and the middle-finger-upper-row is a very good location for a common letter.
2) To reduce pinballing by putting most vowels on the right hand and putting most of the frequent consonants on the left hand.
3) Reduce the number of NFB.
4) Improve hand balance.
5) Keep SFB down of course.
6) A secondary design criteria was low ring-to-pinky-rolls. I find this particular outside roll to be the most awkward movement on the keyboard.
7) Maintain Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
These are all discussed in more detail below. (Middlemak was based on Colemak so I’ll be talking in that sense for some of it.)

1) Middle-Finger-Upper-Row

The main purpose of this layout is to place 2 common letters on the middle-finger-upper-row. The middle finger is very strong and these are excellent locations that are easy to reach.
When you look at the letter frequency, there are 11 common letters before it takes a big drop off. The first eight letters go on the home row under the fingers. The next question is where do the next 3 letters go. Middlemak’s philosophy is to place 2 on the middle-finger-upper-row, and 1 on the index-finger-upper-row. Colemak places 2 on the centre columns, requiring a lateral movement that many find uncomfortable. Dvorak has 4: 2 on the centre column, 2 on upper-row-ring-and-pinky. Workman has 1 middle-finger-upper-row, 1 ring-finger-upper-row, and 1 index-finger-lower-row, a mixed bag.
Using the middle finger also unloads the index fingers. I’ll give the distance stats in “Excessive amounts of stats” section below. The short is that the index fingers can get busy with 6-7 letters, especially when frequent letters are put on them. The distance charts show the drastic difference.
Middlemak’s left hand does have D on the index finger. Where to place that 11th letter is difficult. Many find the ring finger to not be very dexterous. So that means keeping W works for both its lowish frequency and keeping Qwerty similarity. That puts the 11th letter on to the more dexterous index finger. Pairing D with T works very well for low SFB and to put it on the consonant hand.
(Why not curl? Answered in a separate section below.)

2) Pinballing.

I wrote about pinballing in length here). The short of it is that there is an incredibly strong interaction between vowels and the consonants, with 75% of all bigrams between vowels and consonants. Pinballing can arise from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand.
To reduce pinballing Middlemak does two things:
First it moves L off the vowel hand and on to the consonant hand.
Second it moves H to the pinky. H is a very unique letter because it’s almost always followed by a vowel. Moving H to the pinky means it almost always gives inside rolls.
Combined, this reduces pinballing and increases alternating. It’s not entirely alternating though. Middlemak still has rolls because it has N, H, and MKFJ. For N, I find the rolls to be comfortable, likely because N is on the home row. For H, they are now mostly inside rolls.
You might ask if pinballing is still there because overall the right hand still has N and H. Colemak has what I call the NHLMKJ wall, it’s a wall of consonants that the vowels pinball off of. First Middlemak reduces the wall to NMFPJ, which is much lower frequency. This greatly reduces the pinballing. (I don’t include Y in the wall because it’s a vowel and most of its bigrams are on the opposite hand.) Secondly we can look more at the directions: H gives an inside roll to the vowels. After the vowel, it generally continues to the consonants NMFPJ or the other hand (not back to H), which is still an inside roll. Generally only after the third letter can it start to pinball back to the vowels or back to H. The main pinballing/redirect that I can think of is the word “their”.

3) Near Finger Bigrams, NFB

NFB are bigrams that are on adjacent fingers. Too many or an uncomfortable arrangement can be an issue. NFB and pinballing are separate issues: NFB are the smaller pattern of adjacent fingers, pinballing is the much larger pattern of pinballing between all vowels and constants
I’ll cover Colemak first to highlight the issue. On Colemak there are very common NFBs with HE and LE/EL. There is also NE/EN, but I find the HE and EL/LE to be awkward because L and H are off the home row. Pretty much all E bigrams are fairly high. I think you want to move common consonants away from E to reduce NFBs and improve comfort.
Middlemak drastically reduces the NFBs by moving the common letters L and H off the adjacent index finger. The replacement of FE/EF and YE/EY is drastically lower.
Looking at other layouts: Workman still has high NFB with L. Colemak-DH maintains L and H next to E. Many find the new H location more comfortable, but it’s still a ton of NFB with HE and LE/EL is still there. MTGAP moved practically all letters away from the E and O and instead put punctuation there, a very good solution but requires a complete layout change. Semimak put E and I on the ring finger, which is an interesting idea to get them away from the index finger. But that puts a ton of frequency and movement on the ring finger.
Middlemak does create some NFB with O placement. Namely OF, ON, and OM. However OF and ON are very comfortable, having the middle finger extended up feels pretty comfortable. OM is ok, and it’s the least common of those 3. The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like, but it doesn't feel too bad. This is about the best location for a scissor-gram too, with the long-middle-finger up and the curl-index-finger down being able to handle it fairly well. (Just to mention Colemak’s EL/LE, not exactly a scissor-gram, I find is bad since the shorter index finger has to reach up and the middle finger is so long it’s already curled just to be on the home row.)
Overall, Middlemak moving common consonants away from E drastically lowers the number of NFBs and takes away a ton of awkward movements.
Visually, I think you can see this pretty easily in the heatmaps.
([You can extend this concept to fingers further away, to include Colemaks HI, LI, etc. This can be valid, but I’ll focus on adjacent fingers for this.)

4) Hand balance

Hand balance is a difficult topic. The two most obvious metrics for hand dominance are 1) the frequency of the letters, and 2) the distance the hand has to travel (which is different from frequency because you don't travel to the home-row). But any pinballing from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand doesn’t show in the numbers. Having said all that, I’m going to look at those.
Keyboard Vowel Hand Dominant Hand Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency Hand Balance ratio based on Distance Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP Left Right 1.00 1.43 1.43
Workman Right Left 0.97 0.82 0.80 1.26
Norman n/a Right 0.93 1.27 1.19
Colemak Right Right 1.14 1.15 1.32
Middlemak Right Right 1.05 1.06 1.11
Semimak Right Right 1.15 1.30 1.49
Dvorak Left Right 1.23 1.86 2.30
QWERTY n/a Left 0.77 1.06 0.82 1.22
Notes: >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. The hand balance ratios are based on each hand's frequency/distance, right hand divided by left hand. E.g. Middlemak: 51.2% right hand frequency divided by 48.8% left hand frequency equals 1.05. Colemak: 53.2% right hand frequency divided by 46.7% left hand frequency equals 1.14. Those charts will be further down. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two ratios. I did this because having more frequency and more movement on the same hand amplifies the hand dominance. They both matter. Or if one hand has more frequency and the other hand has more movement, that would mitigate it to some degree. This is by no means the most definitive way to look at it, but it's what I've managed to come up with. The "Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant" is a hard math thing to explain (that I hope I'm right about anyway). E.g. for Workman listing 0.80 gives the wrong impression the hand dominance is equivalent to 1.2 (20%). But it's actually 1.26 (26%), obtained from 1/0.8=1.26.
Middlemak is more balanced on both frequency distribution and distance distribution. When both are considered, it really adds up to being more balanced. Middlemak has 1.11 hand balance, compared to Colemak’s 1.32 or Workman’s 1.26.
Ratios can change quite quickly because both the numerator and the denominator can go in opposite directions. Moving L to the other hand does exactly this, changing both the numerator and denominator for both the frequency and the distance. So that one move really helps to balance out the hands.
(I’ll add more charts in “Excessive amounts of detail” below for both frequency and distance. Those will break down frequencies and distances for each finger too, which can be enlightening.)

5) SFB

The SFB of this layout is still pretty low, but it does come out a tad higher than Colemak’s. I’ve debated how to show this and decided to go with the full nuclear option. Data is from Mayzner revisited in millions (which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t have punctuation data, that’s what the 0’s are).
Keyboard Total SFB Left hand SFB Right hand SFB L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
QWERTY 185,270 125,920 59,350 1,105 1,661 54,502 68,651 34,166 3,970 21,214 0
Workman 78,147 29,268 48,878 1,105 3,712 2,806 21,645 27,338 5,037 16,503 0
Dvorak 70,570 28,306 42,264 0 31 0 28,275 12,142 16,265 8,229 5,629
Middlemak 44,698 25,806 18,892 1,105 1,661 2,716 20,323 12,415 3,134 3,343 0
Colemak 39,023 23,336 15,687 1,105 1,267 639 20,323 9,831 5,037 819 0
MTGAP 34,151 14,550 19,601 1,147 339 3,134 9,931 4,629 8,633 5,071 1,267
Notes: This is with index finger pressing C location, which is how I think most people type. Data is from Mayzner revisited in millions, which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t include punctuation, that’s what the 0’s are. Note that adding in punctuation SFB, the numbers would be higher. But adding in punctuation Colemak, Colemak-DH, and Middlemak would all increase by similar absolute amounts. So that means the relative differences between them would actually be smaller than what's shown here.
For Middlemak: You can see it’s not all that much of an increase in SFB from Colemak. Overall the numbers are low considering that it’s based on Qwerty similarity.
On the left hand: The middle finger goes up with R and L. This was to allow more consonants on the left hand and use of the middle-finger-upper-row. I think the middle finger being a strong finger and comfortable reach can handle these quite well. The index finger is the same as Colemak.
On the right hand: The right index goes up a little bit, mostly with NY and MY. They aren’t as high as you may think. But the Y SFB and adding in NK/KN, NF, etc they do add up. It’s not all that much but it is more. I think it’s still easily manageable. (NY is actually not all that common, for example it’s actually less common than EU/UE. The exact Mayzner numbers are: NY/YN is 2,761 / 373. Compared to EU/UE is 878 / 4,158. MY/YM is 1,753 / 668.) The middle finger actually goes down, EO/OE is very low. The ring finger goes up a bit with UI/IU being more common than Colemak’s IY/YI.
If you want overall percentages (index finger pressing C), Middlemak comes in at 2.078%, vs Colemak’s 1.815%, vs Workmans 3.053%, vs Qwerty’s 6.264%.
Colemak really did a good job finding low SFB pairings of SF, DT, NHL, and IY. So changing 3 of those pairings does come at a cost, but it’s done so that Middlemak can put more frequent letters to better spots, reduce pinballing, and reduce NFB. I think the SFB is in the same realm as Colemak, it’s still pretty low.

Ortho SFB

Keyboard Total SFB Left hand SFB Right hand SFB L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
QWERTY 195,687 136,337 59,350 1,105 1,661 86,462 47,108 34,166 3,970 21,214 0
Workman 79,561 30,682 48,878 1,105 3,712 8,206 17,659 27,338 5,037 16,503 0
Dvorak 70,365 28,101 42,264 0 31 1,591 26,480 12,142 16,265 8,229 5,629
Middlemak 42,816 23,924 18,892 1,105 1,661 14,888 6,270 12,415 3,134 3,343 0
Colemak 30,032 14,345 15,687 1,105 1,267 5,702 6,270 9,831 5,037 819 0
MTGAP 34,151 14,550 19,601 1,147 339 3,134 9,931 4,629 8,633 5,071 1,267
Notes: This is with the middle finger pressing C location. This basically moves SFB from the index finger to the middle finger. (For MTGAP it changes punctuation, not letters, so it’s the same based on Mayzner.)
Middlemak on Ortho actually comes in just a tad lower, but Colemak takes a bigger dip. On Middlemak, ortho takes out CT and puts in CR and CL. Colemak on Ortho takes a much bigger dip by taking out CT and putting in SC.
This moves most of the SFB from the index finger to the middle finger. I think it still works, the middle finger is a strong finger and can cover most of these well. The one issue is that CL which is a two row jump.
I’ll break down the full Mayzner numbers:
First the index finger pressing CT/TC is 12,998 / 737. This is what ortho removes.
Middlemak Ortho puts in CRC which is 4,214 / 3,423. And puts in CL / LC which is 4,202 / 333. In percentages, CR is 32% of CT, RC is 26% of CT, and CL is 32% of CT. If you add in all the others (CP, CG, etc), Middlemak Ortho comes in at 87% of CT+TC. Just a tad lower.
Colemak Ortho puts in CS/SC, which is 644 / 4,363. CF/ FC is pretty much nill. In percentages, SC is 34% of CT. If you add in all the others, Colemak Ortho comes in at 36% of CT+TC. A bigger dip.
If you want overall percentages (middle finger pressing C, Ortho style), Middlemak comes in at 2.16%, vs Colemak’s 1.669%, vs Workman’s 3.147%, vs Qwerty’s 6.575%. This is from Colemak-DH analyzer which says Middlemak ortho increases, as opposed to what I found that Middlemak ortho decreases SFB. I think it comes down to the data set used, I used Mayzer revisited.

6) Low ring-to-pinky rolls. And the amazing inside roll from H.

Personally I find the ring-to-pinky roll to be very awkward. Middlemak greatly reduces this roll.
On the left hand: Middlemak’s ring-to-pinky roll of SA and WA is actually pretty low. SA is actually the lowest bigram between the common consonants to A. So SA and WA comes out to be a good design. Compared to Colemak, Middlemak’s SA outside roll is far less common than Colemak’s RA. (The exact numbers are Middlemak’s SA is 6,147. Colemak’s RA is 19,333. WA is the same for both at 10,865. Data from Mayzner revisited in millions.)
On the right hand: Middlmak’s ring-to-pinky roll of IH and UH is very low. Vs Colemak: IO is very common, and even YO is pretty common. (The exact numbers are Middlemak’s IH is 59, UH is 30. Vs Colemak’s IO 23,542, YO is 4,227.)
This next bit isn’t even a secondary design goal, but it’s worth mentioning. On the right hand, outside rolls from any of the fingers to the pinky H are very low. The common letters that come before H are usually TH, CH, WH, SH, and GH. All of those are on the opposite left hand. Doing the math, 97% of the letters before H are on the left hand. H on the pinky gives an amazing inside roll almost all the time.
Also worth mentioning is I think this also de-emphasizes the pinky a bit. First it limits the ring-to-pinky rolls. Second, the frequency of H is much lower than Colemak’s O. Third, the bigram HH is virtually nill, vs Colemak’s OO which is pretty common. None of these are massive, but I think they add up to de-emphasizing the pinky a bit.

7) Qwerty similarity.

Last but not least, this maintains Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
First, this maintains the bottom row (except N) and maintains Q, W, A, and S.
Second, this “keeps” the ASRT order. People learning Colemak commonly say that R and S are reversed. Technically it’s not because R was never on the middle finger to begin with. But it seems to be reversed in the brain. I think it’s two things. First ASRT keeps it in the same order, with R between S and T, even if R changes fingers. Second, I wonder how many people alt-fingered R typing in Qwerty, either all the time or for the RT bigram.
(I've also wondered if, for example, patterns like the very common ION simply being easier to type would make this faster to learn. I’m not certain about that though.)
Comparing layouts:
*Not accounting for punctuation.
Accounting for letters swapping on the same finger, this has fewer changes than Colemak. And I think “keeping” the ASRT order will make it even easier to adopt than the numbers suggest.

Downsides

1) There is a slight increase in SFB compared to Colemak. But overall I think SFB is still low.
2) There are a handful of NFB with R: BR, GR, PR, etc. Same with L and BL. This isn’t enough to change the home row to ARST. There is more below but ASRT has lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and is easier to learn. Also note these are much, much lower than the extremely high NFB that Colemak has with HE, LE, etc.
3) I wanted a less common letter in the G location (Qwerty T location). I really tried to put a less common letter there, but it simply didn’t work.
4) I mention this above but to add more: The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like. This is a limitation of keeping Qwerty similarity (the M) and wanting to put O on the upper-row-middle-finger.. (MTGAP has a good design on this. It paired its EO with a lot of punctuation on the index finger to reduce NFBs.)

Conclusion

I'm really happy with this layout. I think it is a great combination of pretty low SFB, good use of the strong middle finger upper room position, reduced NFB and pinballing, keeping Qwerty similarity, and easy to transition to.
Honestly I’m surprised no one else has stumbled on this arrangement, since many people have taken to trying to fix Colemak’s issues and keep Qwerty similarity.

Some nice rolls and combinations

Although this increases alternating, there are still plenty of rolls left. And combinations too between hands. Some I want to mention:
HE is very easy.
LD feels very good.
OU feels very comfortable.
OF/FO is very common and feels very good.
IO and ION are very nice rolls.
This maintains the nice IEN roll.
IOU is a redirect, but overall feels pretty ok.
YOU has a lateral move, but feels comfortable.
Putting OU+LD together to make OULD feels good.
The very common TH, THE, and THE_ feel very nice not having to move the fingers off the home row.

Vs Colemak and Vs Colemak-DH

I made Middlemak to try to solve the problems I found with Colemak. The items probably all came out already but I’ll do a bit of a summary just to make sure. I don’t mean this to be a hit piece on Colemak or Colemak-DH.
Colemak:
1) Colemak has an issue with high lateral movement with D and H. You see this especially with H and its NFBs, but D isn’t the best either.
2) Colemak’s right index finger is overworked. It just has too much to do with N, H, and L.
3) Colemak has a pinballing issue due to placing most vowels and many common consonants on the same hand.
4) Colemak has a ton of NFB with EL/LE and HE.
5) Colemak has a hand balance issue. It places a lot of emphasis on the right hand with the vowels and several common consonants. (Hand dominance and pinballing are technically separate items.)
6) Colemak’s awkward ring-to-pinky rolls. Notably IO, YO (especially when typing YOU), and also RA on the right hand.
7) Not exactly a direct issue with Colemak, but Middlemak is easier to learn coming from Qwerty. Many new users want to ‘keep’ the order of ASRT instead of ‘reversing’ S and R.
Colemak DH:
Colemak-DH solves 1) the lateral movements. But it doesn’t solve 2) the right index finger overwork, 3) the pinballing, 4) the NFBs 5) the hand balance, 6) the awkward ring-to-pinky rolls, and 7) it changes an absolute ton of letters. It’s pretty much a full change layout.
I think Middlemak solves all these issues and is even easier to learn. I think it’s a win-win.
Why choose Colemak? I think if you type “properly” pressing C with the middle finger and desire low SFB to the point that you accept the issues above. If you type with your index finger pressing C (how I think most people type), then Middlemak is barely any more SFB and it fixes many issues.

Option: Swap A and H

This gives:
QWLDG JFOU: HSRTP YNEIA ZXCVB KM,./ 
The good: This is good if you want to put all the vowels and most consonants on opposite hands. Overall this increases alternating. More alternating comes from moving A. It actually decreases alternating with H, mostly because TH is very common. On normal Middlemak, A and H together have 48% of all their bigrams on the opposite hand. With the AH swap, that goes to 59% of bigrams on the opposite hand.
The neutral: On the left hand, the ring-to-pinky (outside roll) of SH is slightly higher, but in a similar range. SA is 30,709 vs HA is 26,488 (millions, from Mayzner revisited).
The bad. On the right hand, the ring-to-pinky (outside roll) is higher with IA and UA. On both the right and left hand, the all-fingers-to-pinky (outside roll) is higher. On the left hand, TH is just that common. On the right hand, it removes the remarkable low vowel-to-H trend and replaces it with decent outside rolls to A.
The complicated: This option decreases the pinky-to-all-fingers rolls (inside rolls), with both A to all other fingers and H to all other fingers. It increases the all-fingers-to-pinky rolls (outside rolls). Overall, the total sum of inside rolls plus outside rolls is decreased. In short: this lowers inside rolls, increases outside rolls, with an overall sum that is lower. But I think the inside rolls are fine - when I type on Colemak I don’t find much of a problem with A to other fingers.
Basically stick to the original if you want to lower ring-to-pinky movement, lower outside rolls, and easier to learn.
So I can’t recommend this option for most people. I put it as an OK option if someone really wants to increase alternating hands.

Excessive amount of stats

This section has details on distance reductions, hand balance based on frequency, hand balance based on distance, and raw distance numbers. I'm going to give lots of charts. You don’t need to read this all, but these are all the details.

Distance reduction from Qwerty

Keyboard Distance Distance Distance
(km) (miles) (% reduction from Qwerty)
MTGAP 2.592 1.611 46.3%
Workman 2.613 1.624 45.9%
Norman 2.615 1.625 45.9%
Colemak 2.616 1.625 45.8%
Middlemak 2.710 1.684 43.9%
Semimak 2.739 1.702 43.3%
Dvorak 2.813 1.748 41.8%
QWERTY 4.829 3.001 0%
*Source: 62 page / 31k word compilation. Left index used to press Qwerty C location. Includes punctuation.
Middlemak’s distance reduction is good. Most alt keyboards are in the same range. It’s a tad worse on distance than some others because putting O off the home row increases distance because O is more frequent. (MTGAP puts O off the home row, but has all the punctuation on the diagonals to decrease distance.)

All Finger Distances

This is the raw distance travelled in metres. Percentages rely on the total distance travelled, which changes between layouts so it's not comparable. Note that distance is different from frequency. The fingers don't move for the home row, the distance travelled is to the other letters.
Keyboard L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky L Total R Total Total
MTGAP 293 116 413 246 667 320 219 318 1068 m 1524 m 2592 m
Workman 123 232 330 753 505 200 146 325 1437 m 1176 m 2613 m
Norman 127 127 223 674 525 377 244 319 1150 m 1465 m 2615 m
Colemak 130 127 116 842 747 200 141 315 1214 m 1402 m 2616 m
Middlemak 134 127 207 847 440 460 189 306 1314 m 1396 m 2710 m
Semimak 238 237 326 390 506 200 450 393 1191 m 1549 m 2739 m
Dvorak 205 54 34 692 753 285 395 396 984 m 1829 m 2813 m
QWERTY 130 127 670 1413 1169 452 450 418 2340 m 2489 m 4829 m
*All distances in metres. Same source as table above.
First, you can see Qwerty’s distances are extremely high. All the alternatives make big reductions.
Notice that the index fingers move way more than the other fingers.
Middlemak balances this out decently and moves more distance to both middle fingers. The left index finger is still a bit high because it has D off the home row (this brings it back to the discussion of where does the 11th letter go). Middlemak’s left index is slightly higher than Colemak’s even though they have the same letters because D is technically on a slight diagonal because of the row stagger. A technicality really.
The right index finger is low, a good feature that the index finger next to the vowels doesn’t have to travel much. Compared to Colemak, Middlemak’s movement is 41% lower than Colemaks.

Zoom in on index fingers

Keyboard Distance Distance Total Index Finger % of total distance
L Index R Index L+R Index L+R Index
MTGAP 246 667 913 m 35%
Workman 753 505 1259 m 48%
Norman 674 525 1200 m 46%
Colemak 842 747 1589 m 61%
Middlemak 847 440 1287 m 47%
Semimak 390 506 896 m 33%
Dvorak 692 753 1445 m 51%
QWERTY 1413 1169 2582 m 53%
Here you can really see how much work the index fingers do. Middlemak’s sum of the index fingers is nice and low.
You can also look at the percentage of travel with the index finger. Middlemak’s is down at 47% - meaning the index fingers are responsible for 47% of all the distance travelled. On Colemak the index fingers account for 61% the distance travelled, quite a big difference relatively. Workman and Norman are close to Middlemak. MTGAP and Semimak are very low. Dvorak and Qwerty percentages are a bit deceiving though - the higher index finger distances are hidden by the higher total amount of distance.
So even when Middlemak’s left index finger doesn’t have a reduction in distance, the total index finger distance is still significantly reduced.

Hand Balance based on Distance

This is the distance in percentages for all the fingers (unlike the raw distances in metres above) so that I can add them up to look at hand balance.
Keyboard Left hand Right hand Hand Balance Ratio L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
MTGAP 41.2* 58.8 1.43 11.3 4.5 15.9 9.5 25.7 12.3 8.4 12.3
Workman 55.0 45.0* 0.82 4.7 8.9 12.6 28.8 19.3 7.6 5.6 12.5
Norman 44.0 56.0 1.27 4.8 4.8 8.5 25.8 20.1 14.4 9.3 12.2
Colemak 46.4 53.6* 1.15 5.0 4.8 4.4 32.2 28.6 7.6 5.4 12.0
Middlemak 48.5 51.5* 1.06 5.0 4.7 7.6 31.2 16.3 17.0 7.0 11.3
Semimak 43.5 56.5* 1.30 8.7 8.7 11.9 14.2 18.5 7.3 16.4 14.4
Dvorak 35.0* 65.0 1.86 7.3 1.9 1.2 24.6 26.8 10.1 14.0 14.1
QWERTY 48.5 51.5 1.06 2.7 2.6 13.9 29.3 24.2 9.4 9.3 8.7
* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that indicates the differences between the layouts better (>1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant).
I think the raw distances are better for comparison between layouts. I used this mostly for hand balance calcs. But some people think in terms of percentages, so you can see the breakdown for each finger. You can see Middlemak spreads out the work. The pinkies are low, ring fingers are reasonable, middle takes on more, and the indexes have most of the distances.

Hand Balance based on Frequency

Now we’re shifting to frequency. You can see the data for all the fingers, this is enlightening on its own. I also add them up to look at the hand balance.
Keyboard Left hand Right hand Hand Balance Ratio L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
MTGAP 49.9* 50.0 1.00 10.8 8.4 18.8 11.9 16.3 14.5 9.8 9.4
Workman 50.7 49.3* 0.97 9.3 10.1 11.1 20.2 15.2 14.9 9.7 9.5
Norman 51.7 48.3 0.93 9.3 8.3 15.4 18.7 15.2 13.2 11.8 8.1
Colemak 46.7 53.2* 1.14 9.4 7.7 8.2 21.4 19.4 14.9 9.1 9.8
Middlemak 48.8 51.2* 1.05 9.4 8.3 9.7 21.4 13.7 19.6 9.9 8.0
Semimak 46.6 53.4* 1.15 9.7 10.1 11.8 15.0 12.2 14.9 15.6 10.7
Dvorak 44.8* 55.3 1.23 10.3 8.1 12.2 14.2 17.2 13.4 13.0 11.7
QWERTY 56.5 43.5 0.77 9.4 8.3 15.4 23.4 18.8 8.4 11.8 4.5
* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). Ratio of >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant.
The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that highlights the differences between the layouts better than the percentages. I know it doesn't add up to 100%, the analyzer is doing some rounding or something behind the scenes, I'm not going to round any further.
E is so common that it bumps up any finger it’s on.
Middlemak’s left middle finger takes on a bit more work. The left index is still high because of D. The right index is notably lower taking off common letters. The right middle takes on more of the work with O. And the right pinky is lower too with the H there.

Hand Balance Distance + Frequency

This is the same chart that was above, just for a summary.
Keyboard Dominant Hand Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency Hand Balance ratio based on Distance Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP Right 1.00 1.43 1.43
Workman Left 0.97 0.82 0.80 1.26
Norman Right 0.93 1.27 1.19
Colemak Right 1.14 1.15 1.32
Middlemak Right 1.05 1.06 1.11
Semimak Right 1.15 1.30 1.49
Dvorak Right 1.23 1.86 2.30
QWERTY Left 0.77 1.06 0.82 1.22
1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two.

Frequency-off-home-row (F.O.H.R.)

At the risk of too much information, another way to look at this is the frequency that’s off-home-row. I.e. the frequency that is not under the fingers.
Distances weigh the keys differently, while frequency-off-home-row levels that field. This should be read in conjunction with distance. Neither is better than the other, it’s just a different measurement.
Keyboard L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky L+R Index Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR
MTGAP 4.0 2.0 7.2 4.1 10.8 5.8 3.6 3.8 14.9% 36%
Workman 1.5 3.9 5.6 11.5 8.8 3.3 2.5 2.7 20.3% 51%
Norman 1.5 2.1 3.8 10.0 8.8 6.4 4.6 2.6 18.8% 47%
Colemak 1.6 2.1 2.0 12.7 13.0 3.3 2.3 2.6 25.7% 65%
Middlemak 1.6 2.1 4.1 12.7 7.3 8.0 3.1 2.5 20.0% 48%
Semimak 3.5 4.5 5.4 6.3 8.4 3.3 7.8 3.9 14.7% 34%
Dvorak 2.5 0.9 0.6 11.7 11.7 4.7 6.6 5.5 23.4% 53%
QWERTY 1.6 2.1 11.6 21.4 18.6 7.5 7.8 4.5 40.0% 53%
I did this after noticing, on Colemak, that my right index finger moves off the home row a lot. For Colemak the left index finger has more distance, but the right index finger has more frequency-off-home-row. The long distance to B on the left hand skews the distance travelled. The effect is similar on most of the layouts; the F.O.H.R tones down the left hand dominance and bumps up the right hand dominance. With Colemak the frequency of H and L is enough to actually flip them. This is more noticeable with layouts that keep Qwerty’s B (which is just frequent enough to skew things), layouts that change the letter to a less common one shift less.
Also insightful is “Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR”. It shows that on Middlemak the index fingers do 48% of all frequency-off-home-row, quite reasonable. Whereas on Colemak the index fingers have 65% of all frequency-off-home-row, very high. Workman is just a tad higher with the index fingers doing 51% of frequency-off-home-row. Dvorak’s and Qwerty’s 53% for index fingers is a bit deceiving though, it appears low but that's because the overall total F.O.H.R. is much higher.
This is similar to “Zoom in on the index fingers”, but this shows an even greater difference between Middlemak and Colemak. Recall Middlemaks was 47% and Colemaks was 61% for the index finger % of total distance. Same thing, when the distances to the diagonals are levelled out, the frequency shines.

Excessive amount of detail on letters

You really don’t need to read this, this is mostly from a previous writeup (I did clean and add more) that is decent enough that I decided to keep it. You can read it if you have any lingering or specific Q on specific letters.

The R and L position

L pairs well with R for low SFB. After finessing with options, the home row can be arranged to ASRT and L can be put above R on the middle-finger-upper-row, a very desirable location.
I’m sure the R and S location will attract attention, so I’ll discuss it more here. Whether to go with ASRT with L above the R, or ARST with L above the S was not the simplest choice.
[Note that Colemak had to go with ARST because of F on the middle-finger-upper-row. RF/FR is more common than SF/FS, so Colemak had to move S to the middle finger.]

ASRT with L above R:

The pros of ASRT is it gives fewer SFB, with LRL being less than half as common as SL/LS. It also gives fewer ring-to-pinky-rolls with SA being far less common than Colemak’s RA. It also makes it much easier to learn from Qwerty.
The cons is that the R position leads to more NFB with the index finger. Most of these feel ok but RD, GR, BR are not so good. These aren’t super common, but they are there. PR gives the commonly disliked lateral NFB, but I think it’s relatively ok for the frequency - it’s not super common. RS creates an outside roll, but I’d rather have the RS on Middlemak’s middle-to-ring fingers than Colemak’s RA on the ring-to-pinky fingers. Colemak’s RA is much more common than Middlemak’s RS too.

ARST with L above S

The pros of ARST is that it gives an inside roll of RS. It also separates R from the NFB letters on the index finger, which do add up. However, I’m trying to resolve the NFBs of Colemak’s right hand H and L with E which is a magnitude larger, in addition to the pinballing that it creates which requires moving L.
The cons with ARST is that it gives more SFB. It’s not overly much, but it is there. It also gives a lot of ring-to-pinky outside rolls with RA. And finally this makes it much harder to learn coming from Qwerty.

Verdict: ASRT

None of these are huge deal breakers for one or the other. I went with lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and much easier to learn. At the cost of some NFB on the index finger and inside roll of RS.
(If someone comes from Colemak and wants ARST, they can. It's not a humongous downside to do that. Mostly the more common RA ring-to-pinky roll and slightly more SFB of SD/DS.)
(I hope people don’t think that I’m overly focused on keeping S in the Qwerty location. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t have kept it. For this layout, it does work better with ASRT. If it didn’t work I would have changed it. For example, I wanted to keep G on its Qwerty location. But it’s better to move it so I didn’t shy away from changing.)

D position and why not curl?

Why on the upper-row instead of middle-row? First, I think most people find it easier to reach up and down rather than laterally. Second, it works very well with the LD roll.
Why not the bottom row? I want to leave the bottom row the same as Qwerty for ease of transition and to leave the shortcuts of cut-copy-paste the same. I also think C and M (the curl locations) are already near perfect frequencies for those locations. Those are the middle of the pack frequencies, which are perfect for the index fingers - which cover 6 to 7 letters.
I previously said that I’m not a fan of Colemak’s L position, which is the same upper-row-index-finger. But Colemak’s L has a ton of NFBs with the vowels, especially with E but also with all the other vowels. Looking at the whole hand, 62% of L bigrams are on the same hand. I think that’s the source of discomfort. But with Middlemak’s D, only 22% of bigrams are on the same hand, and 78% are on the opposite hand. So MIddlemak has far lower same-hand-gymnastics.

P and G location

It’s better to move G than keep it in its Qwerty location.
P and G are pretty much the same frequency, so it doesn’t matter in that sense.
P has a SFB with T, and it has common bigrams of PR, SP, and even PA. Those work better with P on the middle row. There is PL, but the ones above outweigh it.
G has a bigram with NG. With N on the opposite hand, that means G can go on the worse diagonal spot. There is GR, but PR is far more common.

O location

O and E together give very low SFB. This is a great opportunity to put them together. The strong middle finger only has 3 keys, so it can handle two very frequent letters.

U, Y and F locations

U works pretty well with I, the SFB are reasonably low. This location also creates a nice OU and YOU roll.
Y goes to the index finger, which actually works pretty well. I broke down the numbers in SFB section.
F goes to the right hand index finger, because putting P or G on the right hand gives too many SFB with M and N. The F location works quite well for both moderate frequency and low SFB. It has a lot of NFB with OF/FO, so placing it next to O makes a comfortable roll.
submitted by someguy3 to u/someguy3 [link] [comments]


2023.03.11 23:25 jlanna101 [SELL][US ONLY] Massive declutter of 2022!! Mostly High-end: Pat McGrath, Natasha Denona, Charlotte Tilbury, Hourglass, Patrick Ta, MELT, Tom Ford, Dior, HUDA, Drunk Elephant, TATCHA, La Mer, Herbivore, Farmacy, Sunday Riley, etc

Hi Everyone! Thank you to everyone who has purchased from me already! Same process and rules. I will consider all reasonable offers (besides my high end palettes) and if you want even further discounted prices, you can check this post (generally 10% off the prices here). Please note that everything is crossposted and is first come, first serve. I do not do holds; the only way to confirm your items is by paying for them.
My feedback forms are here:
(Most recent: 2023 Pt 1)
https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/104k7ro/2023_muesce_seller_feedback/
(2021) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/p3q3h2/muesce_seller_feedback/
(2022 Pt 1) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/srspyq/2022_muesce_seller_feedback/
I always try to go above and beyond for my buyers and I think my feedback speaks for itself 💯🥰
Now, that’s out of the way, let’s get onto the rules! This is an absolute monster of a list so please go through everything carefully.
RULES/NOTES: PLEASE READ
Lastly, let's keep it fun! Please no drama- I spent hours/days on this post and I’m exhausted. I am one person and am doing my best. If there are any mistakes (wrong picture, blurry, etc) just let me know and I will fix it. I am happy to take any additional pictures and provide extra details. Please ask before purchasing! Also, please note that I will be shipping from Cali so PST time.
Okay, I think that’s it! Thank you for reading and have fun shopping! :)
*RV = Retail Value
EYESHADOW/FACE PALETTES
  1. Pat McGrath Celestial Nirvana $58 RV $82
  2. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Nude Venus) $40 Retails $62
  3. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Divine Rose) $40 Retails $62
  4. Pat McGrath Bronze Bliss eyeshadow palette $30
  5. Pat McGrath Bridgerton 2 $50
  6. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Trio palette $43
  7. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Blushing Delights $40 INSIDE
  8. Pat McGrath Bronze Borealis Quad $40 box is damaged
  9. Pat McGrath Ritualistic Rose Quad $40 RV $65
  10. Natasha Denona Retro Glam $55 RV $69 (has a nicked shade 'holly')
  11. Natasha Denona My Dream Palette $58 RV $69
  12. Natasha Denona Glam Palette $55 RV $69
  13. Natasha Denona Retro $55 RV $69
  14. Natasha Denona Circo Loco $90 RV $129
  15. Natasha Denona Sunset $85 RV $129
  16. Natasha Denona Biba Palette $60 USED INSIDE Full disclosure- this is an older palette so the formula may be a bit different/not as creamy and pigmented as a new one
  17. Natasha Denona Zendo Palette $48 (3 2 available) RV $69
  18. Natasha Denona Bronze $45 (4 3 available) RV $69
  19. Natasha Denona Sunrise $42 USED INSIDE
  20. Natasha Denona Love $40 USED INSIDE *Please note that this particular palette was notorious for inconsistencies so some of the shades are not the normal ND creamy formula
  21. Natasha Denona Glam Face (dark version) $43 RV $62
  22. Natasha Denona Glam Face (light version) $43 (2 1 available) RV $62
  23. Natasha Denona Bloom Blush and Glow palette $42 RV $59 INSIDE
  24. Natasha Denona Tan $40 RV $59
  25. Natasha Denona Coral $24 RV $48
  26. Natasha Denona Coral $21 SWATCHED
  27. Natasha Denona Ayana BNWOB $15
  28. Natasha Denona Mini Love $18 RV $27
  29. Natasha Denona Mini Zendo $18 RV $27
  30. Natasha Denona All Over Glow Shade 02 Medium BNWOB INSIDE $18
  31. Huda Empowered $50 RV $67
  32. Huda Rose Quartz palette $48 RV $67
  33. Huda Rose Quartz (used 1x) $40
  34. Huda Naughty palette $46 (4 available) RV $67
  35. Huda Naughty- swatched $38. Close up here
  36. Huda Beauty New Nude $42
  37. Huda Wild Chameleon Palette $19 INSIDE
  38. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk Beautifying Face Palette Medium-Deep $60 RV $75
  39. Charlotte Tilbury Smokey Eyes are Forever $50 RV $75
  40. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk 12 pan palette $45 RV $75 INSIDE (new but no box)
  41. Charlotte Tilbury Super Nudes (6 pans) $40 RV $57
  42. Charlotte Tilbury Easy Eye Darling (6 pans)
  43. $40 for BNIB, $38 for BNWOB, This one is swatched for $35 here
  44. Charlotte Tilbury Filmstar Bronze and Glow (Light to Medium) $48- no box
  45. Charlotte Tilbury Flimstar Bronze and Glow (Medium to Dark) $48
  46. Charlotte Tilbury ‘Dazzling Diamonds’ $35 RV $53 swatched
  47. Charlotte Tilbury Sunset Dreamscape Face Palette RV $75 NO BOXES (discontinued)
  48. I have one BN for $50, one looks touched on the top right shade so $46
  49. I have 2 that are swatched/used with no boxes here Left is $38, Right is $40
  50. Chanel Quad in ‘79 Spices’ $50 Retails $68
  51. Patrick Ta Major Headlines Vol 2 $48 RV $58
  52. Patrick Ta Rose Dimensions 2 Palette $55
  53. Tom Ford Desert Fox $45
  54. Tom Ford Pretty Baby Palette 2 shades broken so $35. I can try to repress for you or you can take it as is
  55. GIVENCHY Le 9.01 $45 RV $65
  56. HOURGLASS Ambient Lighting Palette Vol 3 $40
  57. Melt Mariposas Eyeshadow palette $45
  58. Melt Mariposas Blush palette $35
  59. Melt Cosmetics Mary Jane $43
  60. Melt Cosmetics Smoke Sessions $33 (Had one broken shade at the right that I repressed)
  61. Urban Decay Naked Wild West $33 (2 available)
  62. Urban Decay Naked Honey (used and has 1 repressed shade ‘Amber’) $20
  63. Urban Decay NAKED Foxy Mini palette- $15 RV $29
  64. Too Faced Too Femme palette $30 (3 1 available)
  65. ABH Primrose Palette $40
  66. ABH Primrose- New but repressed 2 shades (‘Rose Water’ and ‘Fire Opal’). Although I did my best to repress, cannot guarantee how they will be during transit. $35 RV $55
  67. ABH Amrezy $35 RV $49 (discontinued)
  68. ABH Amrezy (used and repressed one shade ‘Litty’, no box) $25
  69. ABH Rose Metals $40 RV $55 (2 1 available)
  70. ABH Norvina $29 (2 shades were repressed)
  71. ABH Glow Kit Sugar $22 SWATCHED INSIDE
  72. Tarte Sugar Rush Sweet Tarte Frosted $22 (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades)
  73. Tarte Juicy (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades) $22
  74. Jaclyn Hill Rouge Romance 'Rouge Affair' SWATCHED $28 INSIDE
  75. Viseart Tryst 9 pan Palette $22 USED
  76. Jeffree Star Alien palette- discontinued and rare
  77. One still in packaging- make me an offer!
  78. One with no box. I’m going to say swatched 2 shades to be safe - make me an offer! INSIDE
  79. Jeffree Star Blue Blood palette- $30 INSIDE
  80. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar palette $30 INSIDE
Eyeshadow Palettes that are New but Name your price!
  1. ICONIC Sunset to Sunrise Palette
  2. True and Luscious Lucky Glow Palette
  3. Suva Beauty Protege Palette INSIDE
  4. PUR 4-in-1 Face palette in Medium Tan
Eyeshadow Palettes that have been swatched/lightly used- Name your price!
  1. BH Cosmetics It’s My RayeRaye
  2. BH Cosmetics In-Nude-endo INSIDE
  3. Violet Voss Pinky Promise INSIDE
  4. OPVbeauty Spotlight palette INSIDE
  5. Hank and Henry Living in Color palette INSIDE
PRIMERS
  1. Bobbi Brown Vitamin Enriched Eye Base FS
    1. One is BNIB $40, 2 are BNWOB $38
  2. Charlotte Tilbury Brightening Youth Glow $38 RV $55
  3. MAC ‘Painterly’ Paint Pot (used 1x) $12
  4. GLAMGLOW SuperMattify Primer $23
  5. Dr Brandt pores no more Luminizer Primer $15 each (3 available, only one has box)
  6. Urban Decay Primer Potion in shade ‘Eden’ $15
  7. Ole Henriksen Banana primer (used 2x) $18
  8. Tarte Timeless Smoothing Primer $25 (2 1 available)
  9. Too Faced Primed & Poreless+ $15 (box damaged and used 1x)
Mascaras Verification Photo
  1. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk in ‘Super Black’ $20
  2. Lancome Dèfinicils High Definition Lengthening Mascara $18 (2 1 available)
  3. Dermelect XL Lash Volumizer $10
  4. IT cosmetics Superhero Mascara $15 (2 1 available)
  5. Trestique Good Vibes mascara $6
  6. Trestique Good Vibes mascara + Eye pencil $8
  7. Petite n Pretty Fully Feathered Mascara $3
  8. Benefit Lashes all the Way set $15
Setting Powders
  1. ByTerry Hyaluronic Hydra-Powder $35 RV $60
  2. Hourglass Veil Translucent Powder $36 (2 1 available)
Highlighters
  1. Charlotte Tilbury Hollywood Superstar Glow Highlighter- Limited edition/Discontinued $40
  2. Cover FX glitter drops in shade Aurora $12
  3. Cover FX custom drops in shade Blossom $12 (2 1 available)
  4. Cover FX custom drops in shade Halo $12
  5. SAIE Highlighter shade Sunglow $15
LIPS
  1. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar Liquid Lipstick Vault $70 RV $160 (Keep in mind to mix/shake before using as this formula gets clumpy) INSIDE
  2. MAC lipstick in shade Dangerous $8
  3. MAC lipstick in shade So Chaud $8
  4. MAC lipstick in shade Dozen Carnations $8
  5. Bali Balm sweet orange & coconut lip balm $6 (2 1 available)
  6. Primera Clean Berry Lip Mask $12
  7. DOSE OF COLORS lipstick in shade Date Night $8 (2 available, 1 has no box)
  8. TARTE shimmering lip paint in shade Strike Gold $5
  9. YENSA Super 8 Lip Oil in shade ‘On the Mauve’ $8
  10. JOUER Creme Lip Liner in shade pink champagne shimmer $8
  11. ABH liquid lipstick in shade ‘heathers’ $8
  12. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Grape Jelly’ $7
  13. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Maui’ $7 (no box)
  14. Lipstick Queen Nothing but Nudes in shade ‘Tempting Taupes’ (this is new but has sweat spots (does not affect lipstick just cosmetic) $8 INSIDE
  15. Charlotte Tilbury Hyaluronic Happikiss in shade ‘romance kiss’ $25
  16. Charlotte Tilbury Limitless Lucky Lips in shade ‘Cherry Dream’ $18
  17. YSL Slim Glow Matte Rouge in shade ‘217: Intimate Chocolate’ $15
  18. Too Faced Lady Bold lipstick in shade ‘Trailblazer’ $17
  19. Too Faced Lady Bold Lipstick in shade ‘Be True to You’ $17
  20. Whish lip balm in ‘pink champagne’ $10
  21. Tarte Maneater plumping gloss $10
  22. Iconic London Lip plumping gloss in shade ‘S*x Kitten’ $12 (no box)
  23. Lancome L’absolu Rouge in shade ‘120 Sienna’ $18 SWATCHED
  24. Bobbi Brown Luxe Shine Intense Lipstick in shade ‘Claret’ $18 SWATCHED
  25. GLOW RECIPE Watermelon lip pop $12 (no box)
  26. GLOW RECIPE Blueberry lip pop $12
  27. MELT Warm Nudes Mini Set $25
  28. Jeffree Star Velvet Trap in shade Confessional $12 (no box)
  29. Natasha Denona Lip Color 34 Fuchsia Red $14
BLUSHES
  1. Rodial Blush Drops $12
BRONZERS
  1. Marc Jacobs O!mega Bronzer in shade ‘Tantalize’ $35 (new but no box) INSIDE
  2. Huda Glowish in shade ‘Light 01’ $20
  3. ABH Powder Bronzer in shade ‘Saddle’ $18
  4. LYS Beauty Bronzer in shade ‘Motivate’ $10
Eyeshadow Liquids/Singles
  1. HAUS Labs Liquid Shimmer Powder in shade ‘Legend’ $8
  2. DOSE OF COLORS single eyeshadow in shade ‘Jackpot’ $5
  3. MELT eyeshadow single in shade ‘Amelie’ $8
EYELINER and BROWS
  1. Charlotte Tilbury Legendary Brown Tinted Brow Gel in shade ‘Soft Brown’ $18 BNWOB
  2. Benefit Gimme Brow+ in shade ‘3’ $12
  3. ABH Brow Bae-sics Deluxe Kit in shade ‘Taupe’ $20
  4. Laura Geller line-n-define in shade Black $5
  5. MELT Allday Everyday Eyeliner in shade ‘Baked’ $12
FOUNDATION/Concealer
  1. Pat McGrath Skin Fetish Sublime Perfection concealer in shade ‘L1’ used 1x $25
  2. BECCA Ultimate Coverage foundation shade ‘Vanilla’ $15
  3. BECCA Ultimate Coverage in shade ‘Linen’ Used 2x $5 (Keep in mind this is a thicker formula)
  4. Natasha Denona Transformatte foundation in shade ‘22W’ $15
  5. Too Faced Born this Way concealer in shade ‘Chestnut’ used 2x $10
  6. KVD Lock it powder foundation in shade Light 125 $20
  7. BareMinerals BAREPRO Performance Wear Liquid Foundation in shade ‘Shell 7.5’ $10 used 2x
  8. Bobbi Brown Fluid Powder Foundation in shade ‘N-070’ used 2x $10
BRUSHES
  1. MODA Powder and Soft Glow Brush $12
  2. MODA 5 pc Deluxe eye Kit $15
  3. LUXIE Glitter and Gold 9 piece Brush Set $30 (2 available)
  4. Too Faced Mr. Chiseled Contouring Brush $14
SKINCARE:
  1. Tatcha Water Cream $52 Retails $70
  2. Tatcha The Essence 2.5 fl oz (sealed) $40 Retails $65
  3. Tatcha The Essence (sealed) 5.0 fl oz $68 Retails $110
  4. Tatcha the Silk Peony $40 Retails $62
  5. Drunk Elephant C-Firma Fresh Day Serum $55 RV $78 (2 available)
  6. Drunk Elephant TLC Framboos Glycolic Night Serum $62 RV $90 (3 available)
  7. Drunk elephant A-Passioni Retinol Cream $50 RV $74(2 available)
  8. Drunk elephant Virgin Marula Facial Oil $45 RV $68
  9. Drunk Elephant Protini Powerpeptide Resurf Serum $58 RV $82 (3 available)
  10. Drunk Elephant TLC Sukari Babyfacial $58 RV $80
  11. Drunk Elephant Shaba Complex Eye Serum $43 RV $60
  12. Drunk Elephant C-Tango Eye Cream $40 RV $64
  13. La Mer Moisturizing Cream $45 RV $95 (Yes, La Mer is expensive af lol) 0.5 oz/ 15mL BOTTOM NO BOX
  14. Bobbi Brown Hydrating Face Cream $38 RV $64
  15. Dr. Brandt Time Defying Cream FS $30 RV $135
  16. Dr. Brandt Triple Antioxidant Eye Cream $18 (3 2 available)
  17. ELEMIS Superfood Glow Priming moisturizer $18 (2 1 available)
  18. Sunday Riley Tidal (new but beat up box) $35
  19. SUNDAY RILEY Light Hearted Sunscreen $30
  20. FARMACY Daily Greens Moisturizer $25 (2 1 available)
  21. Farmacy Cheer Up Cherry Eye Cream $18
  22. Grown Alchemist Detox Night Cream $18 (2 1 available)
  23. Lancome Lait Galatee Confort Makeup Remover $25
  24. Lancome Tonique Confort Hydrating Facial Toner $25
  25. Saturday Skin Glycolic Toner $18
  26. BeautyStat Universal C Eye Perfector $20 RV $65
  27. Biossance Squalane and Omega Repair Cream $38 RV $58 (no box)
  28. Malin + Goetz recovery treatment oil $30 RV $82
  29. Grown Alchemist Matte Balancing Moisturizer
  30. One BNIB $20, one BN but no box $18
  31. First Aid Beauty Facial Radiance Pads 28 count $10
  32. Alpha-H Liquid Gold with Glycolic Acid 100 mL $30 RV $54
  33. Glo Skin Beauty Pro 5 liquid exfoliant $28 RV $58 (box is a little banged up)
  34. Algenist Triple Algae Eye Renewal Balm $25 RV $68
  35. AHC eye cream $15
  36. Clinique pep-start eye cream $13
  37. Juice beauty Stem Cellular Anti-Wrinkle Eye treatment $25 RV $50
SERUMS
  1. Tatcha Dewy Serum $60 RV $89
  2. Estee lauder Night Repair Serum 1.7 fl oz $65 Retails $110
  3. Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Concentrate $50 RV $82
  4. Farmacy 1% Vitamin A Retinol Serum $40 RV $60
  5. Herbivore Bakuchiol Serum $40 RV $54 (2 available)
  6. Herbivore Emerald Oil used 1x and no box $25
  7. Biossance Squalane Phyto-Retinol Serum $50 FS RV $72
  8. Biossance Squalane Dark Spot Serum 15 mL $30
  9. Biossance Squalane Night Serum 1 fl oz/30 mL $ $35 RV $62 (no box)
  10. Algenist Elevate Advanced Retinol Serum $30 RV $98 (box is banged up)
  11. AKAR restore eye serum $30 RV $85 0.3 oz/10 mL
CLEANSERS
  1. La Mer the Cleansing Foam 1 oz $20
  2. Glow Recipe Papaya Sorbet Cleansing Balm $23
  3. Dr. Brandt Microdermabrasion Exfoliator $30 RV $79
  4. Kate Somerville ExfoliKate Exfoliating Treatment $50 RV $98 2 fl oz (no box)
  5. Korres Greek Yoghurt Foaming Cleanser $16 (packaging is a little dirty but sealed)
  6. Origins Never a Dull Moment Skin-Brightening Face Polisher $15
  7. OSEA Ocean Cleanser .6 oz/18 mL (2 available) $6 each
  8. Perricone MD Vitamin C Citrus Cleanser $15
MASKS
  1. Glow Recipe Watermelon Clay Facial $40 SEALED
  2. Herbivore Brighten Instant Glow Mask $30 (2 available)
  3. Glow Recipe Avocado Mask $26
  4. FARMACY Bright on Vitamin C Mask $22
  5. ELEMIS Superfood Veggie Mask $18
  6. Milk Makeup Watermelon Face Mask $18
  7. Dr. Brandt Vacuum Cleaner $20 RV $42
  8. GLAMGLOW YouthMud Glow Stimulating & Exfoliating Treatment Mask 1 oz/30 g $12 each
    1. Only 1 has box but both BN
  9. Origins Ginzing Peel Off Mask 2.5 fl oz $16
  10. NudeStix Lemon-Aid Detox and micro-peel $12
  11. TRULY Golden leaf CBD Face mask $22
  12. Avant 8 hour radiance renewal sleeping mask 1.69 fl oz $20
SETS
  1. Tatcha No-Filter Essentials $54
  2. Laneige Basic Duo Set $43
  3. La Mer Set $100 ($250 value) BACK
HAIR Verification Photo
  1. IGK Prenup Instant Spray Hair Mask $12
  2. IGK Mistress Hair balm $14
  3. AG Hair Care Fast Food Leave on Conditioner $18
  4. Moroccanoil Perfect Defense Spray $13
  5. Christophe Robin Daily Hair Cream $18
  6. Living Proof forming paste $12
  7. Moroccan Leave in Mask $12
MISC
  1. Sol De Janeiro Rio Deo Deodorant (sealed) $10
  2. Lilly Lashes Lash Enhancing Serum $25
  3. Eyeko Eyelash Curler $8
  4. Dolce and Gabbana The One Perfume
    1. One is 50 mL/ 1.6 Fl Oz $60 RV $96 (to be safe I’ll say used 1x)
    2. One is 75 mL/2.5 oz $80 RV $125 SEALED
  5. Dolce and Gabbana Dolce Garden Travel Spray 0.25 oz/7.5 mL $18
  6. Herbivore Coco Rose Body Scrub $18
  7. Velour Lashes in style ‘Caption This‘ $10
  8. MAC Lashes in style ‘B90’ $10
  9. Lashaholic in style ‘Kiss Me’ $10
  10. FENTY What it Dew Spray $15
  11. OSEA Sea Minerals Mist $18
  12. M. Greengrass dry oil spray $10
  13. TRULY Berry Cheeky $22
  14. Ice Roller $10 Back is cut here- idk how that happened but otherwise sealed
Jeffree Star Red Beanie- name your price
submitted by jlanna101 to makeupexchange [link] [comments]


2023.03.11 18:53 Silverflash22 Just going to leave this here…

Just going to leave this here… submitted by Silverflash22 to brandonherrara [link] [comments]


2023.03.11 18:35 Silverflash22 Just going to leave this here…

Just going to leave this here… submitted by Silverflash22 to ammo [link] [comments]


2023.03.11 18:35 Silverflash22 Just going to leave this here…

Just going to leave this here… submitted by Silverflash22 to 3gun [link] [comments]


2023.03.09 04:51 someguy3 Middlemak

This is a new writeup for Middlemak (renamed since my previous post). Named for the emphasis on the middle finger and use of the middle-finger-upper-row locations for frequent letters
Link to Layout
QWLDG JFOU: ASRTP YNEIH ZXCVB KM,./ 
The main design criteria was:
1) Use the middle-finger-upper-row position. The middle finger is a very strong finger, and the middle-finger-upper-row is a very good location for a common letter.
2) To reduce pinballing by putting most vowels on the right hand and putting most of the frequent consonants on the left hand.
3) Reduce the number of NFB.
4) Improve hand balance.
5) Keep SFB down of course.
6) A secondary design criteria was low ring-to-pinky-rolls. I find this particular outside roll to be the most awkward movement on the keyboard.
7) Maintain Qwerty similarity to make it easier to learn.
These are all discussed in more detail below. (This layout was based on Colemak so I’ll be talking in that sense for some of it.)

1) Middle-Finger-Upper-Row

The main purpose of this layout is to place 2 common letters on the middle-finger-upper-row. The middle finger is very strong and these are excellent locations that are easy to reach. Then the 11th letter is placed on the index-finger-upper-row.
When you look at the letter frequency, there are 11 common letters before it takes a big drop off. The first eight letters go on the home row under the fingers. The next question is where do the next 3 letters go. Middlemak’s philosophy is to place 2 of them on the middle-finger-upper-row, and the 11th common letter goes on the index-finger-upper-row. Colemak places 2 on the centre columns, requiring a lateral movement that many find uncomfortable. Dvorak places them on the centre column, along with upper-row-ring-and-pinky. That means Dvorak has both a lateral movement, ring finger to upper row, and the very bad pinky finger to upper row. Workman has one middle-finger-upper-row, one ring-finger-upper-row, and one on the index-finger-lower-row. It’s a bit of a mixed layout.
Putting frequent letters on the middle fingers also unloads the index fingers and spreads out the work to other fingers. The index fingers can get very busy with 6-7 letters.
Middlemak’s left hand does have D on the index finger. Where to place that 11th letter is a hard choice. Many find the ring finger to not be very dexterous. So keeping W there works for both its lowish frequency and keeping Qwerty similarity. That puts the 11th common letter on to the more dexterous index finger. Pairing D with T works very well for low SFB and to put it on the consonant hand.
(Why not curl for D? Answered in a separate section below.)

2) Pinballing.

(I wrote about pinballing in length here). The short of it is that there is an incredibly strong interaction between vowels and the consonants, with 75% of all bigrams between vowels and consonants. Pinballing.can arise from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand.
To reduce pinballing Middlemak does two things:
First it moves common consonant L from the vowel hand and to the consonant hand.
Second it moves H to the pinky. H is a very unique letter because it is almost always followed by a vowel. Moving H to the pinky means it gives inside rolls, with virtually no pinballing back to H.
Combined, this increases alternating and reduces pinballing/redirects/one-hand-gymnastics.
This increases alternating, but it's not entirely. Middlemak still has rolls because it has N, H, and MKFJ. For N, I find the rolls to be comfortable, likely because N is on the home row as opposed to Colemak’s H and L. For H, they are now inside rolls.
You might ask if pinballing is still there because overall the right hand still has N and H. Colemak has what I call the NHLMKJ wall, it’s a wall of consonants that the vowels pinball off of. Middlemak reduces the wall to NMFPJ, which is much lower frequency. (I don’t include Y in the wall because it’s a vowel and most of its bigrams are on the opposite hand.) For H, it gives an inside roll to the vowels. After the vowel, it generally continues to the consonants NMFPJ, which is still an inside roll. Generally only after the third letter can it start to redirect/pinball back to the vowels or H. The main pinballing/redirect that I can think of is the word “their”.

3) Near Finger BIgrams

NFB are bigrams that are on adjacent fingers. Too many or an uncomfortable arrangement can be an issue. NFB and pinballing are separate issues. NFB are the smaller pattern of adjacent fingers. Pinballing is the much larger pattern of pinballing between all vowels and constants
I’ll cover Colemak first to highlight the issue. On Colemak there are very common NFBs with HE and LE/EL. There is also NE/EN, but I find the HE and EL/LE to be awkward because L and H are off the home row. Pretty much all E bigrams are fairly high. I think you want to move common consonants away from E to reduce NFBs and improve comfort.
Middlemak drastically reduces the NFBs by moving the common letters L and H off the adjacent index finger. The replacement of FE/EF and YE/EY is drastically lower. It maintains M for Qwerty similarity, which has a moderate amount.
Looking at other layouts, Workman still has high NFB with L. Colemak-DH maintains L and H next to E. Many find the new H location more comfortable, but it’s still a ton of NFB. MTGAP moved practically all letters away from the E and O and instead put punctuation there, a very good solution but requires a complete layout change. Semimak put E and I on the ring finger, which is an interesting idea to get them away from the index finger. But that puts a ton of frequency and movement on the ring finger, which is not so strong or dexterous
Middlemak does create some NFB with O placement. Namely OF, ON, and OM. However OF and ON are very comfortable, having the middle finger extended up feels pretty comfortable. OM is ok, and it’s the least common of those 3. The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like, but it doesn't feel too bad. This is about the best location for a scissor-gram too, with the long-middle-finger up and the curl-index-finger down being able to handle it fairly well. (Just to mention Colemak’s EL/LE, not exactly a scissor-gram, is bad since the shorter index finger has to reach up and the middle finger is so long it’s already curled just to be on the home row.)
Overall, Middlemak moving common consonants away from E drastically lowers the number of NFBs and takes away a ton of awkward movements.

4) Hand balance

Hand balance is a difficult topic. The two most obvious metrics for hand dominance are 1) the frequency of the letters, and 2) the distance the hand has to travel (which is different from frequency because you don't travel to the home-row). But those metrics are not completely sufficient to describe what’s going on because possible pinballing from having too many vowels and consonants on the same hand doesn’t show in the numbers.
Having said all that, I’m going to take a stab at it.
Keyboard Vowel Hand Dominant Hand Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency Hand Balance ratio based on Distance Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP Left Right 1.00 1.43 1.43
Workman Right Left 0.97 0.82 0.80 1.26
Norman n/a Right 0.93 1.27 1.19
Colemak Right Right 1.14 1.15 1.32
MiddleMak Right Right 1.05 1.06 1.11
Semimak Right Right 1.15 1.30 1.49
Dvorak Left Right 1.23 1.86 2.30
QWERTY n/a Left 0.77 1.06 0.82 1.22
Notes: >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant. The hand balance ratios are based on each hand's frequency/distance, right hand divided by left hand. E.g. Middlemak: 51.2% right hand frequency divided by 48.8% left hand frequency equals 1.05. Colemak: 53.2% right hand frequency divided by 46.7% left hand frequency equals 1.14. Those charts will be further down. Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two ratios. I did this because having more frequency and more movement on the same hand amplifies the hand dominance. They both matter. Or if one hand has more frequency and the other hand has more movement, that would mitigate it to some degree. This is by no means the most definitive way to look at it, but it's what I've managed to come up with. The "Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant" is a hard math thing to explain (that I hope I'm right about anyway). E.g. for Workman listing 0.80 gives the wrong impression the hand dominance is equivalent to 1.2 (20%). But it's actually 1.26 (26%), obtained from 1/0.8=1.26.
MIddlemak is more balanced on both frequency distribution and distance distribution. When both are considered, it really adds up to being more balanced. Middlemak has 1.11 hand balance, compared to Colemak’s 1.32 or Workman’s 1.26.
The ratio changes quite quickly because both the numerator and the denominator change and go in opposite directions. Moving L does exactly this, changes both the numerator and denominator. So Middlemak does balance the hands quite well (as well as drastically reducing pinballing and NFBs).
I’ll add more charts in “Excessive amounts of detail” below for both frequency and distance. It’s just excessive for this section. Those will break down frequencies and distances for each finger too, which can be enlightening.

5) SFB

The SFB of this layout is still pretty low, but it does come out a tad higher than Colemak’s. I’ve debated how to show this and decided to go with the full nuclear detailed numbers. Data is from Myzner revisited in millions, which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t include punctuation, that’s what the 0’s are.
Keyboard Total SFB Left hand SFB Right hand SFB L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
QWERTY 185,270 125,920 59,350 1,105 1,661 54,502 68,651 34,166 3,970 21,214 0
Workman 78,147 29,268 48,878 1,105 3,712 2,806 21,645 27,338 5,037 16,503 0
Dvorak 70,570 28,306 42,264 0 31 0 28,275 12,142 16,265 8,229 5,629
MiddleMak 44,698 25,806 18,892 1,105 1,661 2,716 20,323 12,415 3,134 3,343 0
Colemak 39,023 23,336 15,687 1,105 1,267 639 20,323 9,831 5,037 819 0
MTGAP 34,151 14,550 19,601 1,147 339 3,134 9,931 4,629 8,633 5,071 1,267
Notes: This is with index finger pressing C location, which is how I think most people type. Data is from Myzner revisited in millions, which only has letter bigrams and doesn’t include punctuation, that’s what the 0’s are.
Note that adding in punctuation SFB, the numbers would be higher. But adding in punctuation Colemak, Colemak-DH, and Middlemak would all increase by similar absolute amounts. So that means the relative differences between them would actually be smaller than what's shown here.
For Middlemak. You can see it’s not all that much of an increase in SFB. Overall the numbers are low considering that it’s based on Qwerty similarity.
On the left hand: The middle finger goes up with R and L. This was to allow more consonants on the left hand and use of the middle-finger-upper-row. I think the middle finger being a strong finger and comfortable reach can handle these quite well. The index finger is the same as Colemak.
On the right hand: The right index goes up a little bit, mostly with NY and MY. It’s not all that much but it is more. I think it works well. NY is not as common as you may think, for example it’s actually less common than EU / UE. The exact Mayzner numbers are: NY / YN is 2,761 / 373. While EU / UE is 878 / 4,158. And MY / YM is 1,753 / 668. Having the Y on the index finger does add up a little bit, but I think it’s still easily manageable. The middle finger actually goes down, EO/OE is really not common. The ring finger goes up a bit with UI/IU being more common than Colemak’s IY/YI.
Overall percentage (with the index finger pressing C, how I think most people type), Middlemak comes in at 2.078%, vs Colemak’s 1.815%, vs Workmans 3.053%, vs Qwerty’s 6.264%.
Aside: Colemak really did a good job finding low SFB pairings of SF, DT, NHL, and IY. So changing 3 of those pairings does come at a cost, but it’s done so that Middlemak can put more frequent letters to better spots, reduce pinballing, and reduce NFB. I think the SFB is in the same realm as Colemak, it’s still pretty low.

Ortho SFB

Keyboard Total SFB Left hand SFB Right hand SFB L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
QWERTY 195,687 136,337 59,350 1,105 1,661 86,462 47,108 34,166 3,970 21,214 0
Workman 79,561 30,682 48,878 1,105 3,712 8,206 17,659 27,338 5,037 16,503 0
Dvorak 70,365 28,101 42,264 0 31 1,591 26,480 12,142 16,265 8,229 5,629
MiddleMak 42,816 23,924 18,892 1,105 1,661 14,888 6,270 12,415 3,134 3,343 0
Colemak 30,032 14,345 15,687 1,105 1,267 5,702 6,270 9,831 5,037 819 0
MTGAP 34,151 14,550 19,601 1,147 339 3,134 9,931 4,629 8,633 5,071 1,267
Notes: This is with the middle finger pressing C location. This basically moves SFB from the index finger to the middle finger. (For MTGAP it changes punctuation, not letters, so it’s the same.)
Middlemak on Ortho actually comes in just a tad lower, but Colemak takes a bigger dip. On Middlemak, ortho takes out CT and puts in CR and CL. Colemak on Ortho takes a much bigger dip taking out CT and putting in SC, which is lower.
I think Middlemak on Ortho works well. It does have CL which is a two row jump, but that’s about it.
The full Mayzner numbers:
CT / TC is 12,998 / 737, which is taken out on Middlemak and Colemak Ortho.
Middlemak Ortho puts in CR / RC which is 4,214 / 3,423. And puts in CL / LC which is 4,202 / 333. In percentages, CR is 32% of CT, RC is 26% of CT, and CL is 32% of CT. If you add in all the others (CP, CG, etc), Middlemak Ortho comes in at 87% of CT+TC. Just a tad lower.
Colemak Ortho puts in CS / SC, which is 644 / 4,363. CF/ FC is pretty much nill. In percentages, SC is 34% of CT. If you add in all the others, Colemak Ortho comes in at 36% of CT+TC. A bigger dip.
Overall percentages (with the middle finger pressing C Ortho style), Middlemak comes in at 2.16%, vs Colemak’s 1.669%, vs Workman’s 3.147%, vs Qwerty’s 6.575%. This is from Colemak-DH analyzer which oddly says MIddlemak increases. I think it comes down to the data set used, for the charts above I used Mayzer revisited.

6) Low ring-to-pinky rolls. And the amazing inside roll from H.

On the left hand, Middlemak’s ring-to-pinky roll of SA and WA relatively low. SA is actually the lowest bigram between the common consonants to A. So SA and WA comes out to be a good design. The only way to get this ring-to-pinky roll down any further is to move A to the right hand, which greatly reduces any ease of transition. Vs Colemak: Middlemak’s SA outside roll is less common than Colemak’s RA. Additionally, the inside roll of AS is also less common than Colemak’s AR.
On the right hand the outside roll of ring-to-pinky of IH and UH is very low. Vs Colemak: IO is very common, and even YO is pretty common.
This next bit isn’t even a secondary design goal, but it’s worth mentioning. On the right hand, outside rolls from any of the fingers to the pinky H are very low. The common letters that come before H are usually TH, CH, WH, SH, and GH. All of those are on the opposite left hand. Doing the math, 97% of the letters before H are on the left hand.
I think this also de-emphasizes the pinky a bit in a few different ways. First is limiting the ring-to-pinky rolls makes the pinky overall easier. Second, the frequency of H is much lower than Colemak’s O. Third, the bigram HH is virtually nill, vs Colemak’s OO which is pretty common. These aren’t knock-outs, but I think they add up to de-emphasizing the pinky a bit which is worth mentioning.

7) Qwerty similarity.

Last but not least, this maintains Qwerty similarity. Most people have a lot of muscle memory and Qwerty similarity makes a new layout much easier to learn.
First, this maintains the bottom row (except N) and maintains Q, W, A, and S.
Second, this “keeps” the ASRT order. People learning Colemak commonly say that R and S are reversed. Technically it’s not because R was never on the middle finger to begin with. But it seems to be reversed in the brain. I think it’s two things. First ASRT keeps it in the same “order”, with R between S and T, even if R changes fingers. Second, I wonder how many people alt-fingered R when typing in Qwerty, either all the time or for the RT bigram.
Comparing layouts:
*Not accounting for punctuation because.
When you account for letters swapping on the same finger, this has fewer changes than Colemak. And I think “keeping” the ASRT order will make MiddleMak even easier to adopt than the numbers suggest.

Downsides

1) There is a slight increase in SFB compared to Colemak. But overall I think SFB is still low.
2) There are a handful of NFB with R: BR, GR, PR, etc. Same with L and BL. This isn’t enough to change the home row to ARST. There is more below but ASRT has lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and is easier to learn. Also note these are much lower than the extremely high NFB that Colemak has with HE, LE, etc.
3) I wanted a less common letter in the G location (Qwerty T location). I really tried to put a less common letter there, but it simply doesn’t work with keeping Qwerty similarity and low SFB.
4) I mention this above but I’ll cover more. The OM scissor-gram is a bit more common than I'd like. This is a limitation of keeping Qwerty similarity: wanting to both put a common letter, O, on the upper-row-middle-finger and keep M on the index-finger-bottom-row. (MTGAP has a good design on this. It paired its EO on the middle finger with a lot of punctuation on the index finger to reduce NFBs.)

Q: Why not curl?

First, I think after the eight spots on the home row, the next most comfortable positions are the middle finger upper row. This is a strong finger, an easy to reach location, and it unloads the index finger.
Second, I think C and M (the curl locations) are already near perfect frequencies for those locations. Those are the middle of the pack frequencies, which are perfect for the index fingers which cover 6 to 7 letters (instead of the other fingers covering 3). So we can preserve C and M from Qwerty.

Conclusion

I'm really happy with this layout. I think it is a great combination of pretty low SFB, good use of the strong middle finger upper room position, reduced NFB and pinballing, keeping Qwerty similarity, and easy to transition to.
Honestly I’m surprised no one else has stumbled on this arrangement, since many people have taken to trying to fix Colemak’s issues and keep Qwerty similarity.

Some nice rolls and combinations

Although the goal was to increase alternating, there are still plenty of rolls left. And combinations too between hands. Some I want to mention:
HE is very easy.
LD feels very good.
IO and ION are very nice rolls.
OU feels very comfortable.
IOU is a redirect, but overall feels pretty ok.
YOU has a lateral move and outside roll, but feels comfortable.
Putting OU+LD together to make OULD feels good.
This maintains the nice IEN roll.
OF/FO is very common and feels very good.
The very common TH, THE, and THE_ feel very nice not having to move the fingers off the home row.

Vs Colemak and Vs Colemak-DH

I made Middlemak to try to solve the problems I found with Colemak. The items probably all came out already but I’ll do a bit of a summary just to make sure. (I don’t mean this to be a hit piece on Colemak or Colemak-DH)
Colemak’s issues:
1) Colemak’s has an issue with high lateral movement with D and H. You see this especially with H, but D isn’t the best either.
2) The right index finger is overworked. It just has too much to do with N, H, and L.
3) Colemak’s pinballing issue due to placing most vowels and many common consonants on the same hand.
4) Colemak’s hand balance issue. It places a lot of emphasis on the right hand with the vowels and several common consonants. (Hand dominance and pinballing are separate items, although they can be related.)
5) Colemak’s awkward ring-to-pinky rolls. Notably IO, YO (especially when typing YOU), and also RA on the right hand.
6) Not exactly a direct issue with Colemak, but Middlemak is easier to learn coming from Qwerty. Many new users want to ‘keep’ the order of ASRT instead of reversing S and R.
Colemak DH:
Colemak-DH solves 1) the lateral movements. But it doesn’t solve 2) the right index finger overwork, 3) the pinballing, 4) the hand balance, 5) the awkward ring-to-pinky rolls, and 6) it changes an absolute ton of letters. It’s pretty much a full change layout. Shortcuts are still accessible, but the layout changes a ton.
Why would you choose Colemak? I think iff you type “properly” pressing C with the middle finger (I think most people press it with the index finger) and desire low SFB to the point that you accept the issues outlined above. If you type with your index finger pressing C (how I think most people type), then Middlemak is barely any more SFB and it fixes many issues.

Excessive amount of detail on letters

The R and L position

L pairs well with R for low SFB. After finessing with options, the home row can be arranged to ASRT and L can be put above R on the middle-finger-upper-row, a very desirable location.

ASRT with L above R:

I’m sure the R and S location will attract attention, so I’ll discuss it more here. Whether to go with ASRT with L above the R, or ARST with L above the S was not the simplest choice.
[First note though that Colemak had to go with ARST because of F on the middle-finger-upper-row. RF/FR is far more common than SF/FS, so Colemak had to move S to the middle finger.]
The pros of this is ASRT gives fewer SFB, with LRL being less than half as common as SL/LS. It also gives fewer ring-to-pinky-rolls with SA being far less common than Colemak’s RA. It also makes it much easier to learn from Qwerty.
The cons is that the R position leads to more NFB with the index finger. Most of these feel ok but RD, GR, BR are not so good. These aren’t super common, but they are there. PR gives the commonly disliked lateral NFB, but I think it’s relatively ok for the frequency - it’s not super common. RS creates an outside roll, but I’d rather have the RS on Middlemak’s middle-to-ring fingers, than Colemak’s RA ring-to-pinky fingers. RA is much more common than RS too.

ARST with L above S

The pros of ARST is that it gives an inside roll of RS. It also separates R from the NFB letters on the index finger, which do add up. However, I’m trying to resolve the NFBs of Colemak’s right hand H and L with E which is a magnitude larger, in addition to the pinballing that it creates.
The cons with ARST is that it gives more SFB. It’s not overly much, but it is there. It also gives a lot of ring-to-pinky outside rolls with RA, which I find uncomfortable. And finally this makes it much harder to learn coming from Qwerty.

Verdict: ASRT

None of these are huge deal breakers for one or the other. I went with lower SFB, lower ring-to-pinky rolls, and much easier to learn. At the cost of some NFB on the index finger and inside roll of RS.
(If someone is coming from Colemak and wants to make it ARST for various reasons, they can. It's not a humongous downside to do that. The downsides are the more common RA ring-to-pinky roll and slightly more SFB SD/DS.)
(I hope people don’t think that I’m overly focused on keeping S in the Qwerty location. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t have kept it. For this layout, it really does work better with ASRT. If it didn’t work, I would have changed it. For example, I wanted to keep G on its Qwerty location. But it’s better to move it, so I didn’t shy away from changing.)

D position

Why on the upper-row instead of middle-row? First, I think most people find it easier to reach up and down rather than laterally. Second, it works very well with the LD roll.
Why not the bottom row? I want to leave the bottom row the same as QWERTY for ease of transition and to leave the shortcuts of cut-copy-paste the same.
I previously wrote that I was not a fan of Colemak’s L position, which is the same upper-row-index-finger. But with Colemak’s L there are a ton of Near Finger Bigrams with all the vowels, especially with E but also with all the other vowels. Looking at the whole hand, 62% of L bigrams are on the same hand. I think that’s the source of discomfort. But with Middlemak’s D, only 22% of bigrams are on the same hand, and 78% are on the opposite hand. So this has lower same hand gymnastics.

P and G location

It’s better to move G than keep it in its Qwerty location.
P and G are pretty much the same frequency, so it doesn’t matter in that sense.
P has a SFB with T, and it has common bigrams of PR, SP, and even PA. Those work better with P on the middle row. There is PL, but the ones above outweigh it.
G has a bigram with NG. With N on the opposite hand, that means G can go on the worse diagonal spot. There is GR, but PR is far more common.

O location

O and E together give very low SFB. This is a great opportunity to put them together. The strong middle finger only has 3 keys, so it can take two common letters and unload the index finger.

U, Y and F locations

U works pretty well with I, the SFB are reasonably low. This also creates a nice OU and YOU roll.
Y goes to the index finger, which actually works pretty well. NY/YN is not as common as you may think (it’s less common than EU/UE for example).
F goes to the right hand index finger, because putting P or G on the right hand gives too many SFB with M and N. Putting F there works quite well for both lower frequency and low SFB. It has a lot of NFB with OF/FO, so placing it next to O makes a comfortable roll.

Option: Swap A and H

This gives:
QWLDG JFOU: HSRTP YNEIA ZXCVB KM,./ 
The good: This is good if you want to put all the vowels and most consonants on opposite hands. This increases alternating overall. More alternating comes from moving A. It actually decreases alternating with H, because TH is just that common. On normal Middlemak, A and H together have 48% of all their bigrams on the opposite hand. With the AH swap, that goes to 59% of bigrams on the opposite hand.
The neutral: On the left hand, the ring-to-pinky (outside roll) of SH is slightly higher, but in a similar range. SA is 30,709 vs HA is 26,488 (millions, from Mayzner revisited).
The bad. On the right hand, the ring-to-pinky (outside roll) is higher with IA and UA. On both the right and left hand, the all-fingers-to-pinky (outside roll) is higher. On the left hand, TH is just that common. On the right hand, it removes the remarkable low vowel-to-H trend and replaces it with decent outside rolls to A.
The complicated: This option decreases the pinky-to-all-fingers rolls (inside rolls), with both A to all other fingers and H to all other fingers. It increases the all-fingers-to-pinky rolls (outside rolls). Overall, the total sum of inside rolls plus outside rolls is decreased. In short: this lowers inside rolls, increases outside rolls, with an overall sum that is lower. But I think the inside rolls are fine - when I type on Colemak I don’t find much of a problem with A to other fingers.
Basically stick to the original if you want to lower ring-to-pinky movement, lower outside rolls, and easier to learn.
So I can’t recommend this option for most people. I put it as an OK option if someone really wants to increase alternating hands.

Excessive amount of stats

This section has details on distance reductions, hand balance based on frequency, hand balance based on distance, and raw distance numbers. I'm going to give lots of charts. Some of this is repeated from above because the sequence tells a story.
You don’t need to read this all, but if you want to know different measurements between layouts, this is some data. This is also (mostly) in Norman/wiki.

Distance reduction from Qwerty

Keyboard Distance Distance Distance
(km) (miles) (% reduction from Qwerty)
MTGAP 2.592 1.611 46.3%
Workman 2.613 1.624 45.9%
Norman 2.615 1.625 45.9%
Colemak 2.616 1.625 45.8%
MiddleMak 2.710 1.684 43.9%
Semimak 2.739 1.702 43.3%
Dvorak 2.813 1.748 41.8%
QWERTY 4.829 3.001 0%
*Source: 62 page / 31k word compilation. Left index used to press Qwerty C location. Includes punctuation.
Middlemak’s distance reduction is good. Most alt keyboards are in the same range. It’s a tad worse on distance than some others because putting O off the home row instead of H increases distance, because O is more frequent than H. (MTGAP puts O off the home row, but has all the punctuation on the diagonals to decrease distance.)

All Finger Distances

This is the raw distance travelled in metres. Percentages rely on the total distance travelled, which changes between layouts, so it's not comparable. Note that distance is different from frequency. The fingers don't move for the home row, the distance travelled is to the other letters.
Keyboard L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky L Total R Total Total
MTGAP 293 116 413 246 667 320 219 318 1068 m 1524 m 2592 m
Workman 123 232 330 753 505 200 146 325 1437 m 1176 m 2613 m
Norman 127 127 223 674 525 377 244 319 1150 m 1465 m 2615 m
Colemak 130 127 116 842 747 200 141 315 1214 m 1402 m 2616 m
MiddleMak 134 127 207 847 440 460 189 306 1314 m 1396 m 2710 m
Semimak 238 237 326 390 506 200 450 393 1191 m 1549 m 2739 m
Dvorak 205 54 34 692 753 285 395 396 984 m 1829 m 2813 m
QWERTY 130 127 670 1413 1169 452 450 418 2340 m 2489 m 4829 m
*All distances in metres. Same source as table above.
First, you can see Qwerty’s distances are extremely high. All the alternatives make big reductions.
Notice that the index fingers move way more than the other fingers, because they have 6-7 letters.
Middlemak balances this out decently and moves more distance to both middle fingers. The left index finger is still a bit high because it has D off the home row (this brings it back to the discussion of where does the 11th letter go). Middlemak’s left index is slightly higher than Colemak’s even though they have the same letters because D is technically on a slight diagonal because of the row stagger. That’s a technicality really
The right index finger is quite low, a good feature that the index finger next to the vowels doesn’t have to travel much. Compared to Colemak, MIddlemak’s movement is 41% lower than Colemaks, almost half the distance travelled.

Zoom in on index fingers

Keyboard Distance Distance Total Index Finger % of total distance
L Index R Index L+R Index L+R Index
MTGAP 246 667 913 m 35%
Workman 753 505 1259 m 48%
Norman 674 525 1200 m 46%
Colemak 842 747 1589 m 61%
MiddleMak 847 440 1287 m 47%
Semimak 390 506 896 m 33%
Dvorak 692 753 1445 m 51%
QWERTY 1413 1169 2582 m 53%
Here you can really see how much work the index fingers do. Middlemak’s sum of the index fingers is nice and low.
You can also look at the percentage of travel with the index finger. Middlemak’s is down at 47% - meaning the index fingers are responsible for 47% of all the distance travelled. On Colemak the index fingers account for 61% the distance travelled, quite a big difference relatively. Workman and Norman are close to Middlemak. MTGAP and Semimak are very low. Dvorak and Qwerty percentages are a bit deceiving though - the higher index finger distances are hidden by the higher total amount of distance.
So even when MIddlemak’s left index finger doesn’t have a reduction in distance, the index finger total is still significantly reduced to quite low levels.

Hand Balance based on Frequency

Now we’re shifting to frequency. You can see the data for all the fingers, this is enlightening on its own. I also add them up to look at the hand balance.
Keyboard Left hand Right hand Hand Balance Ratio L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
MTGAP 49.9* 50.0 1.00 10.8 8.4 18.8 11.9 16.3 14.5 9.8 9.4
Workman 50.7 49.3* 0.97 9.3 10.1 11.1 20.2 15.2 14.9 9.7 9.5
Norman 51.7 48.3 0.93 9.3 8.3 15.4 18.7 15.2 13.2 11.8 8.1
Colemak 46.7 53.2* 1.14 9.4 7.7 8.2 21.4 19.4 14.9 9.1 9.8
MiddleMak 48.8 51.2* 1.05 9.4 8.3 9.7 21.4 13.7 19.6 9.9 8.0
Semimak 46.6 53.4* 1.15 9.7 10.1 11.8 15.0 12.2 14.9 15.6 10.7
Dvorak 44.8* 55.3 1.23 10.3 8.1 12.2 14.2 17.2 13.4 13.0 11.7
QWERTY 56.5 43.5 0.77 9.4 8.3 15.4 23.4 18.8 8.4 11.8 4.5
* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). Ratio of >1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant.
The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that highlights the differences between the layouts better than the percentages. I know it doesn't add up to 100%, the analyzer is doing some rounding or something behind the scenes, I'm not going to round any further.
E is so common that it bumps up any finger it’s on.
Middlemak’s left middle finger takes on a bit more work. The left index is still high because of D. The right index is notably lower taking off common letters. The right middle takes on more of the work with O. And the right pinky is lower too with the H there.

Hand Balance based on Distance

This is the distance in percentages for all the fingers (unlike the raw distances in metres above) so that I can add them up to look at hand balance.
Keyboard Left hand Right hand Hand Balance Ratio L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky
MTGAP 41.2* 58.8 1.43 11.3 4.5 15.9 9.5 25.7 12.3 8.4 12.3
Workman 55.0 45.0* 0.82 4.7 8.9 12.6 28.8 19.3 7.6 5.6 12.5
Norman 44.0 56.0 1.27 4.8 4.8 8.5 25.8 20.1 14.4 9.3 12.2
Colemak 46.4 53.6* 1.15 5.0 4.8 4.4 32.2 28.6 7.6 5.4 12.0
MiddleMak 48.5 51.5* 1.06 5.0 4.7 7.6 31.2 16.3 17.0 7.0 11.3
Semimak 43.5 56.5* 1.30 8.7 8.7 11.9 14.2 18.5 7.3 16.4 14.4
Dvorak 35.0* 65.0 1.86 7.3 1.9 1.2 24.6 26.8 10.1 14.0 14.1
QWERTY 48.5 51.5 1.06 2.7 2.6 13.9 29.3 24.2 9.4 9.3 8.7
* indicates vowel hand (Norman and Qwerty are mixed enough that there is no vowel hand). The ratio between the hands can change quite quickly, so I think that indicates the differences between the layouts better (>1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant).
I think the raw distances are better for comparison between layouts. I used this mostly for hand balance. But some people think in terms of percentages, so you can see the breakdown for each finger. You can see Middlemak spreads out the work. The pinkies are low, ring fingers are reasonable, middle takes on more, and the indexes have most of the distances.
Where this differs from frequency: The distance the index fingers travel is higher because of the diagonal distances. (This was also highlighted in the zoom in on the index fingers part, just broken into more fingers here.)

Hand Balance Distance + Frequency

This is the same chart that was above, so I won’t add anymore past the chart.
Keyboard Dominant Hand Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency Hand Balance ratio based on Distance Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant
MTGAP Right 1.00 1.43 1.43
Workman Left 0.97 0.82 0.80 1.26
Norman Right 0.93 1.27 1.19
Colemak Right 1.14 1.15 1.32
MiddleMak Right 1.05 1.06 1.11
Semimak Right 1.15 1.30 1.49
Dvorak Right 1.23 1.86 2.30
QWERTY Left 0.77 1.06 0.82 1.22
(>1 indicates right hand dominant, <1 indicates left hand dominant).
Hand Balance ratio based on Frequency and Distance is a simple multiplication of the two. I did this because having more frequency and more movement on the same hand amplifies the hand dominance. Or if one hand had more frequency and the other hand had more movement, that would mitigate it to some degree. This is by no means the best or most definitive way to look at it, but it's what I've managed to come up with.
The "Corrected comparison number for left hand dominant" is a hard math thing to explain (that I hope I'm right about anyway). E.g. For workman listing 0.80 gives the wrong impression the hand dominance is equivalent to 1.2 (20%). But it's actually 1.26 (26%), because you'd have to multiply 0.80 by 1.26 to get 1.0.

Frequency-off-home-row (F.O.H.R.)

At the risk of too much information, another way to look at this is the frequency that’s off-home-row. I.e. the frequency that is not under the fingers. (Defining home row as the eight letters under the fingers.)
It’s different enough from the distances to warrant mentioning. Distances weigh the keys differently, while frequency-off-home-row levels that field. This should be read in conjunction with distance, neither is better than the other, it’s just a different measurement.
I did this after noticing, on Colemak, that my right index finger moves off the home row a lot, which this confirms. The long distance to B on the left hand skews the distance travelled.
Keyboard L Pinky L Ring L Middle L Index R Index R Middle R Ring R Pinky L+R Index Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR
MTGAP 4.0 2.0 7.2 4.1 10.8 5.8 3.6 3.8 14.9% 36%
Workman 1.5 3.9 5.6 11.5 8.8 3.3 2.5 2.7 20.3% 51%
Norman 1.5 2.1 3.8 10.0 8.8 6.4 4.6 2.6 18.8% 47%
Colemak 1.6 2.1 2.0 12.7 13.0 3.3 2.3 2.6 25.7% 65%
MiddleMak 1.6 2.1 4.1 12.7 7.3 8.0 3.1 2.5 20.0% 48%
Semimak 3.5 4.5 5.4 6.3 8.4 3.3 7.8 3.9 14.7% 34%
Dvorak 2.5 0.9 0.6 11.7 11.7 4.7 6.6 5.5 23.4% 53%
QWERTY 1.6 2.1 11.6 21.4 18.6 7.5 7.8 4.5 40.0% 53%
More insightful is “Index FOHR as % of All fingers FOHR”. It shows that on Middlemak the index fingers do 48% of all frequency-off-home-row, quite low. That means 53% goes to the other fingers. Whereas on Colemak the index fingers have 65% of all frequency-off-home-row, very high, and only 35% goes to the other fingers. Workman is just a tad higher with the index fingers doing 51% of frequency-off-home-row. Dvorak’s and Qwerty’s 53% for index fingers is a bit deceiving though, it appears low but that's because the overall total F.O.H.R. is much higher.
submitted by someguy3 to u/someguy3 [link] [comments]


2023.03.08 18:45 Unlikely_Garlic Scotiabank Arena Parking for Muse Concert - Reserve Parking Downtown or Take Train In?

Hello askTO!
I am coming to Toronto tomorrow night alone from Buffalo, NY for the Muse concert. I wanted to ask if it would be easier to reserve parking downtown coming from the US not knowing much about the Toronto transit system, or if its still easier to find a train station along the way and take the train into Scotiabank Arena? If I should take the train, which stations offer free parking and would have parking spaces at around 3-3:30PM tomorrow right off the QEW? I read in previous threads Oakville is a good station that might offer free parking and would have availability?
Thank you for the help!
submitted by Unlikely_Garlic to askTO [link] [comments]


2023.03.08 14:14 ghstdrmr Disaster preparedness class April 19. Pre-Register

Disaster preparedness class April 19, 7 pm at Eggertsville Hose Company 1880 Eggert Rd Buffalo NY 14226.
Must pre-register https://www.mylocalsafety.com/mylslinks?fbclid=IwAR3kdF1-cnP715NNuNmyF-dFBfAwNCfDJAiyGHnvfTbShOxsqPsv5fzitiQ Use code 883531
Check out the Eggertsville Hose Facebook for more info. Each family receives an emergency kit in a book bag. Posting because during the blizzard fellow Redditors were interested in this type of preparedness class. Take it!! Edit to add registration link:
https://www.dhses.ny.gov/citizen-preparedness-training-calendar Select April class in Buffalo
submitted by ghstdrmr to Buffalo [link] [comments]


2023.03.07 20:50 taeionysus Lost compass card Dm if urs found by transportation centre

Lost compass card Dm if urs found by transportation centre submitted by taeionysus to simonfraser [link] [comments]


2023.03.07 05:18 AzumaHazuki Where is the cheapest place to rent?

I'm looking to emigrate from Buffalo NY to Canada within 12-18 months, and am considering Hamilton, St. Catharines, Fort Erie, Welland, and Thorold. I'm going to complete George Brown college's Pharmacy Assistant program (online) before coming, and attempt to get a work permit to emigrate.
Where is cheap to rent in St Catharines? I'm single but hoping to get married soon (and on that note, how is SC for lesbian couples? Is there a lot of discrimination?). I'm not wealthy, and don't have expensive tastes or high standards; just want somewhere reasonably safe and with good public transit access as I don't drive. I'd prefer a 1-bed but could make a decent-sized bachelor(ette) work as well.
Thank you in advance for any help you can provide!
submitted by AzumaHazuki to stcatharinesON [link] [comments]


2023.03.06 15:13 James_Grove Update 0.4.2.18 (0.4.2.16 - Xbox, PlayStation®)

Update 0.4.2.18 (0.4.2.16 - Xbox, PlayStation®)

https://preview.redd.it/nwyp4e7sm4ma1.png?width=1100&format=png&auto=webp&s=c666d642504046a4ac84170798eaba4d950e5655
Meet the new Enlisted update! All machine guns are noticeably more accurate when firing from any position, AI soldiers are much better at avoiding bomb blasts and fire, and will no longer try to stop you from building engineering structures, plus accumulated knives and other unnecessary items can now be sold.
We have also optimized the processor utilization of the game — in some cases, the frames per second can increase quite noticeably.
Look at the cool graphic improvement — the new system of wind interaction with flora. The trunks and branches of trees and bushes now simulate real interaction with the wind depending on its strength. You will be able to appreciate the new animations in the Pacific war campaign.
The already impressive variety of game missions has expanded again in Tunisia, the Pacific, Berlin, Moscow, and Stalingrad. In fact, this is just a tiny part of the more than 200 changes!

WEAPONRY AND SOLDIERS

  • Reduced dispersion for most machine guns:
    • MG 34: -27%;
    • MG 42: -29%;
    • MG 42 early: -27%;
    • MG 34 with Patronentrommel 34 magazine: -27%;
    • MG 15: -19%;
    • MG 45: -33%;
    • DP-27: -22%;
    • Beltfed DP: -22%;
    • DPM: -20%;
    • DT--29: -21%;
    • RD-44: -27%;
    • MG 13: -27%;
    • MG 13 with drum magazine: -27%;
    • ZB-26: -13%;
    • MG 30: -30%;
    • Madsen: -29%;
    • Chauchat: -35%;
    • Lewis gun: -23%;
    • Fedorov MG: -8%;
    • Breda Mod. 30: -29%;
    • Browning wz. 1928: -12%;
    • Browning M1918: -15%;
    • Browning M1918A1: -13%;
    • Browning M1918A2: -14%;
    • Colt Monitor: -19%;
    • Besal: -12%;
    • Bren Mk I: -12%;
    • Bren Mk II: -13%;
    • M1941 Johnson LMG: -13%;
    • Type 11 LMG: -15%;
    • Type 97 LMG: -11%;
    • Type 96 LMG: -8%;
    • Breda Mod. 30 in the Battle of Stalingrad campaign: -21%;
    • Vickers-Berthier: -17%;
    • Charlton Automatic Rifle: -12%;
    • FG 42: -22%;
    • FG 42 II: -22%;
    • M1 Carbine, M1A2 Carbine, M2 Carbine, M2A1 Carbine, M1 Carbine with grenade thrower: -50%;
    • Boys ATR: four times more accurate. Now it is as accurate as other anti-tank rifles.
  • Heavy machine guns can be damaged by light infantry weapons and are four times as strong as a machine gun nest.
  • The camera shake effect when a player is hit will now be reduced depending on the range that the bullet flew before connecting. This improvement, for example, will make the effect of suppression from automatic weapons less interfering with return fire at a distance.
  • Reduced duration of the phosphorus grenade toxic effect from 15 seconds to 8.
  • Faster transition to aiming mode for machine guns with low weight for this class of weapon: M1941 Johnson LMG, FG 42, FG 42 II.
  • Improved predictability of Sten submachine guns recoil: Sten Mk 2, Sten Mk 3, Sten Mk 2S, Austen.
  • Added correct models for the large and small grenade pouches for Axis in the Battle for Moscow, Battle of Stalingrad, Invasion of Normandy, and Battle of Berlin campaigns.
  • Fixed incorrect camera behavior when reloading some light machine guns.
  • The weapon purchase window now displays the full list of classes which can use it.
  • Fixed inconsistency between recoil characteristics of StG 44 sniper version and regular StG 44 sniper version. The recoil has become more predictable.
  • Corrected pistol weights in Battle for Moscow campaign.
  • Nagant Revolver, Colt New Service — corrected reloading time in weapons cards.
  • Now during a quick grenade throw a soldier will lower the weapon he was holding at that moment.
  • Removed the slow reload option for the S&W M1917 revolver. The soldier will change both clips regardless of the number of remaining rounds in the cylinder.
  • Removed the ability to use melee weapons while crossing obstacles.
  • Browning M1919A6 — now after reloading an empty belt the correct amount of ammunition of the next belt will be displayed.
  • Radio operators got the ability to call artillery while being in a vehicle.

VEHICLES

  • Adjusted the armor penetration of the Yak-9K’s cannon.
  • Improved vehicle exhaust effect.
  • Fixed the following problems with the M3 Stuart flamethrower tank:
    • The machine gun icon has been replaced with the correct fire icon.
    • Flamethrower now has the correct name in X-Ray.
  • Overheat indicator is now displayed when rotating head in the tank with the C button if there is at least one machine gun that can be fired from.

CONTROLS

  • Improved gamepad controls. Added prioritization for actions assigned to one button:
    • If a door is in front of the fighter, a vehicle you can sit in, an ally you can heal, or an item you can take, that action is performed, not reloading as before.
    • Reloading while aiming inside a vehicle now has a higher priority than exiting a vehicle.
    • Picking up a weapon from the ground now has a higher priority than fixing a vehicle or exiting a vehicle solo.

ANIMATIONS AND SOUNDS

  • Added new environment sounds indoors.
  • Fixed many sound bugs for reloading of different weapons.
  • Improved firing sounds from some tank machine guns.
  • Fixed grenade explosion sounds for the GGP/40 grenade launcher.
  • Disabled the building animation from playing if it is not possible at the current position for some reason.

VISUAL EFFECTS

  • Added a new system of wind interaction on the flora in the Pacific war campaign. Now the trunks and branches of trees and bushes simulate the real interaction with the wind depending on its strength on the location.
  • Added a new spark effect following some hits.
  • Added a new effect of burning on ground.
  • Water splashes now scatter as the tank moves through the water.
  • Added smoke effect to F2A Buffalo's engine boost.
  • Added a small smoke effect (mostly used on house chimneys).
  • Improved small smoke effect, mostly used as smoke from tank barrels.
  • Improved hit effect from Type 97 anti-tank rifle.
  • Optimized the effect of smoke from the crater after a powerful explosion.
  • Fixed missing damage effects on downed aircraft.

LOCATIONS AND MISSIONS

  • Added extra ground vehicles respawn points in the Gorge South (Invasion) mission in the Battle of Tunisia campaign.
  • Added new mission Airfield East (Invasion) to the Invasion of Normandy campaign.
  • Added new mission Entrance group (Conquest) in the Battle of Stalingrad campaign.
  • Added new mission Forestry (Destruction) to the Battle for Moscow campaign.
  • Added new mission The Reich Chancellery (Confrontation) to the Battle of Berlin campaign.
  • Added new mission Gavutu Airfield (Destruction) to the Pacific war campaign.
  • Added new mission Oasis (Conquest) to the Battle of Tunisia campaign.
  • Added extra cover near the fourth point in the Airfield (Invasion) mission in the Invasion of Normandy campaign.
  • Fixed a bug with the ammunition resupply point for vehicles in the Communist street East (Invasion) and Communist street West (Invasion) missions in the Battle of Stalingrad campaign.
  • Fixed a bug with the ammunition resupply point for vehicles in the Oasis (Invasion) mission in the Battle of Tunisia campaign.
  • Fixed a bug which caused flags to remain hanging in the air on the Battle of Stalingrad campaign maps.
  • Fixed the aircrafts' respawn point in the Forestry South (Invasion) and Forestry North (Invasion) missions in the Battle for Moscow campaign.
  • Fixed bugs with combat zones in the Airfield (Invasion), Omer North (Invasion), Omer South (Invasion) missions in the Invasion of Normandy campaign.
  • Fixed infantry respawn points in the Gare de Saint-Lo (Destruction) mission in the Invasion of Normandy campaign.
  • Fixed infantry respawn points in the Gorge South (Invasion) mission in the Battle of Tunisia campaign.
  • Fixed the vehicles' respawn points in the Airfield (Invasion) mission in the Invasion of Normandy campaign.
  • Improved the Warehouse capture point’s geometry in the Omer North (Invasion) and Omer South (Invasion) missions in the Invasion of Normandy campaign.
  • Improved the balance of several missions in all campaigns.

REPLAYS

  • If a spectated player dies in a replay, the camera will automatically switch to the next squad member under his control.
  • Added a smooth zoom in replays in free camera mode.
  • Added inertia of a free camera stop in replays.
  • The name of modifications is now displayed on the replay page on the Enlisted website.
  • Fixed a bug that caused graphical artifacts-shadows to appear at high resolution screenshots taken in replays.

USER MODIFICATIONS EDITOR

  • The squad.changeTeam console command now works in sandbox editor mode.
With the release of this update, preparations have begun to modify game files that will require changes to existing custom modifications. Detailed instructions will soon be added on the sandbox.enlisted.net portal under "How to update your mod".

AI SOLDIERS

  • AI soldiers now try not to obstruct the player during the construction of an engineering structure.
  • AI soldiers now try to run as far as possible from the falling aerial bomb.
  • Fixed a bug where player's AI soldiers could take cover outside the boundary of the battle zone.
  • Fixed a bug that caused AI soldiers to sometimes not start extinguishing themselves.
  • Fixed a bug that caused AI soldiers to go around fire incorrectly.
  • Non-engineer AI soldiers will now be able to disassemble structures as well.

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

  • In the battle statistics priority is now on the active class of the player, the ranks of the participants in the battle are shown in the debriefing.
  • Added an option to enter combat by double-clicking on the selected respawn point.
  • Added an option to upgrade several weapons of the same model or move them to another campaign.
  • You can now sell basic items like knives and first-aid kits.
  • Displaying possible ability points and information about starting perks was added into the Soldier Recruitment window.
  • Grenades will now explode in the player's hand if cooked too long, instead of automatically throwing them with minimum delay.
  • The logistics and armory menu now displays weapon modifications — sniper scopes, bayonets, grenade launchers.
  • In the infantry training improved description of the grenade throw. Added different hints to different stages of throwing.
  • Added display of booster bonuses for squad and soldiers in debriefing.
  • Allied markers now become semi-transparent if the player cannot see allies.
  • Now received weapons or vehicles can be improved immediately in the window of its receiving.
  • Improved the poses of soldiers when firing from STZ-5 tractor body.
  • Improved heat haze effect in the Battle of Tunisia campaign.

BUG FIXES

  • Fixed camera shake when moving the engineer's anti-tank guns.
  • Fixed the penetration of wooden objects in the environment.
  • Thin wooden objects such as fences, doors, planks, etc. are now easily penetrated, while thicker ones such as house walls, timbers, tree trunks, etc. still serve as good cover from enemy fire.
  • Fixed the commander looking out of the tank hatch for a short period of time when switching places in a vehicle.
  • Fixed weapon switching to pistol if pressed to fire immediately after throwing a grenade via hotkey.
  • Fixed a bug with the timing of cartridge ejection when firing Arisaka rifles, Mosin system and Springfield M1903 line of rifles.
  • Fixed a bug with missing recoil control factor for Beretta M1918 and Thompson M1928A1. The Beretta M1918’s recoil is increased by 35%, which, combined with the recoil control factor, makes this submachine gun comparable in performance to other weapons in this class.
  • Fixed the shooting sound of the MG 13 with a drum magazine.
  • It is no longer possible to use an anti aircraft gun that has fallen under water.
  • In Destruction mode, removed tooltip "Only one sector left!" when all objects have already been destroyed.
  • The player is no longer considered a vehicle killer if the vehicle took no damage, and the player through the menu killed all crew members.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the "Auto-equip" to try to replace the engineer's shovel.
  • Fixed a bug that caused some perks' icons to not match the cost points.
  • Fixed a bug that caused some bayonets to be poorly visible when viewed in the warehouse.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the position in the event record table to not update if the player was not in the top 25 places.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the camera to be too close to the PE-3 aircraft.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the boxes with first-aid kits not to be displayed on the minimap.
  • Fixed the bug with the display of the fuel capacity of the Flammenwerfer 35 flamethrower.
  • Fixed a bug that occurred when transferring some weapons to another campaign.
  • Fixed a bug that caused an engineer to be able to build a rally point in places where players would get stuck when respawn.
  • Fixed a bug that could sometimes cause weapons to appear hanging in the air.
  • Fixed a bug that would cause a player who threw away a weapon while putting on/removing a grenade launcher to not be able to fire other weapons they had.
  • Fixed the sound of a headshot on a hit without a kill.
  • Fixed the text of the tooltips in Destruction mode. They now say that the object should be destroyed, not captured.
  • Fixed a bug due to which all buildings in the engineer training became available after the death of the player.
  • Fixed a bug that allowed hitting a soldier with a shovel and digging the ground at the same time.
  • Fixed the ability to heal, drink from a flask and call in artillery while planting a bomb.
  • Fixed the ability to dig under some small objects.
  • Fixed the ammunition resupply point icon not visible in the dark outline of the tank sight.
  • Fixed inability to hold breath while firing from vehicles.
  • Fixed inability to build any construction in the flashing zone (only rally points can't be built in the flashing zone).
  • Fixed inability to aim weapons in WD Big 4.
  • Fixed a bug that made it impossible to control the boat with a gamepad.
  • Fixed a bug that could cause infantry training to get stuck at the grenade throwing stage.
  • Fixed missing grenade resupply hint in training in some cases.
  • Fixed a bug that would cause AI soldiers to start running in infantry training.
  • Fixed a bug that could cause AI soldiers to die outside the zone in infantry training.
  • Fixed a bug that could cause a rally point building to not count in infantry training.
  • Fixed a target disappearing in training for an engineer.
  • Fixed a bug that caused a tank not to explode in tank training after being hit.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the tank to double up in tank training.
  • Fixed a bug which caused mines to explode when destroying environmental elements (fence, furniture) in close proximity to the mine.
  • Fixed a bug which caused a projectile fired from a mortar to have the wrong direction.
  • Fixed a bug with the aiming of the gunner's turret on the Me 410 aircraft.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the kill log to show the player as a killer, even though he was not.
  • Fixed a bug that made the player see the message that his vehicle needs repairs when it doesn't need it.
  • Fixed a bug that made engineers in the Battle of Stalingrad campaign unable to be equipped with MKb 42(W).
  • Fixed a bug that caused the readiness button to sometimes reset when selecting a squad in battle.
  • Fixed a bug, because of which the destroyed tank in the grey zone was not scored to the player who damaged it earlier.
  • Fixed a bug which caused the effect of burning tankers to be visible outside the tank.
  • Fixed a bug which didn't allow the transfer of upgraded weapons between campaigns.
  • Fixed a bug that prevented the friends list on PS4 from being updated.
  • Fixed a bug that could leave dishes hanging in the air after destroying a table.
  • Fixed an interface bug when spamming the inventory list.
  • Fixed the display of guns on the train when tracking a player in spectator mode.
  • Fixed display of platform suffix for names of players who were kicked out of combat.
  • Fixed warning about not enough weapon upgrade orders.
  • Fixed the end-to-end scrolling of the soldier recruitment window.
  • Fixed a bug that caused the squad invitation sound to be played in combat where the invitation cannot be accepted.
  • Fixed a bug, because of which the saving of graphics settings in the battle did not apply in the hangar.
  • Fixed some poses of soldiers with PPT-27.
  • Fixed the sight jumps when switching between seats in vehicles.
  • Fixed the display of the tooltip on the destruction of the allied rally point.
  • Disabled killing the player with a phosphorus grenade if the player or the grenade is under water.
  • Fixed the position of the shovels icons in the inventory.
  • When shooting at destroyed tanks, bullet marks are now drawn.
  • Soldiers now can't throw grenades while swimming in water.
  • Fixed the ability to dig and create craters under the rails at the STZ.
  • Fixed a bug of personal weapons falling out of vehicles when its crew members were killed.
  • Fixed a bug which caused the TNT explosive to be unresponsive to the detonator's detonation command.
  • Fixed a bug, because of which a commander of M10 could fire his personal weapon through the armor of the vehicle.
  • Fixed a bug that would cause the AI soldiers' order marker to be placed under the ground.
  • Fixed flickering fog in some areas.
  • Fixed a bug that caused graphic settings not to be saved after changing them in the battle.
submitted by James_Grove to enlistedgame [link] [comments]


2023.03.05 20:24 TheTalkedSpy "False Ideas Regarding Death" by Wayne Jackson (April 30, 2017)

Each day of our existence we are reminded of the grim reality of death. It haunts us. We know so little about it. In fact, we know almost nothing regarding this ultimate physical experience, except for what is revealed in the Bible. But the biblical information is limited, and so false notions about death permeate society's thinking. The following discussion represents a brief survey of some of these erroneous concepts.

Death Is an Illusion

Mary Baker Eddy, founder of "Christian Science," alleged that "there is no death" (n.d., 575). She contended that death is but an "illusion." How can a rational person subscribe to such a notion? We mention this more as a matter of oddity than anything else. Mrs. Eddy's tombstone is an eloquent argument against this absurd doctrine.

Death Is Nothing More than the Ultimate Biological Reality

To the atheist, death is no more than the cessation of earthly life. But death is much more than a mere biological phenomenon. Just as life is a gift from God (Acts 17:25), so death is a divine punishment for sin. This does not mean, of course, that every time someone dies such is the consequence of his or her personal sin. Even innocent babies die.
But the fact is, God warned grandfather Adam that death would be the result of disobedience (Genesis 2:17), and Paul reaffirmed this divine truth: "Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned" (Romans 5:12).
In a manner of speaking, Adam stood as the representative of the human race. When the first man violated Heaven's law, humanity was cursed with the penalty of having to suffer the consequence of that initial transgression — though not the personal guilt. The truth is that the entire creation has been blighted as a result of sin (cf. Romans 8:20-22).
Skeptics ridicule the biblical narrative regarding the commencement of death. It is viewed as an absurd myth that belongs in the Stone Age (Allen 1990, 108). But no infidel can explain why death occurs. If life had the ability to "jump-start" itself, as evolution's theory of spontaneous generation asserts, why can't it sustain itself within the individual? And is it not remarkable that evolution—supposedly a progressive, refining process—has not been able to eliminate death? If "natural selection" is working toward a higher evolutionary pinnacle, why doesn't science observe an increase in human vitality? Actually, just the reverse is true. The history of biological life is a record of degeneration, not regeneration (see Jackson 1994, 2-3). Why haven't we evolved immortality? Death is an argument that no materialist can answer!
Why hasn't modern medicine been able to make significant advancements in human longevity over the past three thousand years? In David's day, men lived to three-score and ten years — perhaps with strength to four-score — on average (cf. Psalm 90:10). We have not improved these statistics with our twentieth-century medical technology. Some people are paying thousands of dollars to have their bodies frozen, in the hope that science will discover a cure for the cause of their demise. They aspire to be ultimately thawed in order to resume an eternal earthly existence. What futility! Mortality points strikingly to God.

Death Is Merely a Transition to a New Mode of Earthly Existence

In India, four hundred million Hindus believe in reincarnation. This is the idea that the human soul passes through a series of earthly phases, i.e., bodies human or animal — depending upon the particular ideology—before finally attaining release from this chain of events. In recent years, New Age zealots in this country (e.g., Shirley MacLaine) have popularized the idea of the transmigration of the soul. Recent polls suggest that more than half of the American public believes in the possibility of these experiences. However, with the exception of a few miraculous cases back in history (e.g., the resurrection of Lazarus), "it is appointed unto men once to die" (Hebrews 9:27). Each human being will give an account to the Lord for the deeds done in his "body" — not bodies (II Corinthians 5:10). Bible teaching contradicts the idea of reincarnation.

Death Is the Termination of Human Existence

Suicide has reached epidemic proportions in America. Self-murder is becoming an increasingly popular way to "end it all." But the fact is, death ends only one's earthly existence, not his personal existence. Biblical evidence makes it abundantly clear that at the point of death, the spirit of a person merely leaves the body (James 2:26). Separation, however, is not the same as extinction.
Scriptural information indicates that in death the soul of man enters the Hadean realm (cf. Revelation 1:18; 20:13-14). The narrative regarding the rich man and Lazarus forcefully reveals that death does not terminate human existence (Luke 16:19-31). Too, Christ promised the penitent thief that the two of them would be together again in Paradise that very day, following their respective deaths (Luke 23:43). Every biblical passage which speaks of the coming judgment argues for the continuity of human existence.

Death Is a State of Non-conscious Existence

While the Bible speaks of death as a "sleep," that term is used only of the disposition of the body. Scripture knows nothing of "soul-sleeping." The part of man which "sleeps" in death is that which is deposited in the dust of the ground (Daniel 12:2). This involves only the body, not the soul. Again, both the rich man and Lazarus were conscious following their deaths (Luke 16:19-31). Moreover, those souls who had been martyred for the cause of Christ, as depicted in Revelation 6:9-11, were obviously conscious as they cried out for divine justice on their behalf. (For further study, see Are the Dead Conscious?).

Death Involves the Continuity of Human Family Relationships

Our Mormon friends subscribe to the doctrine of "celestial" marriage. This is the notion that marriage is not for time only, it is for eternity as well — for those who reach the highest degree of exaltation (Smith 1952, section 132). But this dogma is woefully at variance with the testimony of Jesus. Certain Sadducees posed a problem for the Lord: A woman had been married successively to seven brothers during her lifetime. Whose wife would she thus be in the resurrection? Christ responded: "You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:29-30). The marriage relationship does not obtain in heaven.

There Is No Recognition after Death

Some allege that there will not be any remembrance of earthly relationships in heaven. Supposedly, heaven's citizens could not be happy with the awareness that unredeemed loved ones are not there. However, the Bible presents solid evidence that there will be recognition in the celestial region. The Old Testament patriarchs fully expected to be reunited with their redeemed loved ones (Genesis 25:8; 37:35; II Samuel 12:23). The Lord promised that we will fellowship with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 8:11). Will one know when that promise is realized? If so, then the patriarchs will be recognized. And if we will know them, it is certain they will know each other! I have discussed this topic at greater length elsewhere (Jackson 1987, 1-3).

Death Constitutes a Period of Probation and Preparation

A number of religious groups advocate concepts that suggest the possibility of preparation for eternity after death. Roman Catholicism, for example, has the doctrine of purgatory—the place where souls are supposedly purged of sin before they enter heaven. Mormonism advocates the notion of "baptism for the dead." Charles T. Russell, founder of the "Jehovah's Witnesses," argued that salvation is not "confined to the present life" (1912, 9ff). But there is no truth in these vain hopes.
After death, there is only the prospect of judgment — not a further opportunity for obedience (Hebrews 9:27). In the parable of the virgins, Jesus taught that in whatever condition one goes to "sleep," i.e., dies, in exactly that same state he will meet the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13). Moreover, there is a permanent, impassible chasm between the place of punishment and that of reward, and no man can cross it (Luke 16:26). There is no post-mortem plan of salvation. Now is the day of redemption (II Corinthians 6:2).

It Is Possible to Communicate with the Dead

According to recent surveys, more than half of all Americans believe they have been in contact with someone who has died. But the Bible teaches that the dead have no knowledge at all as to what is transpiring upon this earth (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6; cf. Isaiah 63:16). If the rich man of Luke 16 could have communicated with his brothers on earth, he surely would have done so (Luke 16:27-31)<, but he was powerless to reach them. The fact of the matter is that the Scriptures condemn even an attempt to contact the dead (cf. Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27).

Death Is the Final and Permanent State of the Body

The ancient Sadducees denied the ultimate resurrection of the human body (Matthew 22:23). Their modern counterparts, the advocates of "realized eschatology," are similarly deceived. Max King alleges that the resurrection discussed in 1 Corinthians 15 is merely a "resurrection" of the Christian cause from a period of intense Jewish persecution and that such resurrection was fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the fall of Judaism (1987, 429ff). A more perverted concept cannot be imagined.
The Bible affirms that our resurrection from the dead on the "last day" (cf. John 11:24) will be analogous to the Lord's bodily resurrection (see I Corinthians 15:20; cf. Philippians 3:20). Actually, Paul puts the denial of a future bodily resurrection in the same category as a repudiation of the resurrection of Christ himself (I Corinthians 15:13-16). What are the consequences of proclaiming such a heresy?
How tragic that there are so many false ideas regarding death. It is incumbent upon the serious Bible student to study the sacred Scriptures so that he does not fall into any of these fallacious views.

REFERENCES


SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

Acts 17:25; Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12; Romans 8:20-22; Psalm 90:10; Hebrews 9:27; II Corinthians 5:10; James 2:26; Revelation 1:18, 20:13, 14; Luke 16:19-31; Luke 23:43; Daniel 12:2; Revelation 6:9-11; Matthew 22:29, 30; Genesis 25:8, 37:35; II Samuel 12:23; Matthew 8:11; Matthew 25:1-13; Luke 16:26; II Corinthians 6:2; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6; Isaiah 63:16; Luke 16; Luke 16:27-31; Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Leviticus 19:31, 20:6, 27; Matthew 22:23; 1 Corinthians 15; John 11:24; 1 Corinthians 15:20; Philippians 3:20; I Corinthians 15:13-16
submitted by TheTalkedSpy to TrueChristian [link] [comments]


2023.03.04 05:16 jlanna101 [SELL][US ONLY] Massive declutter of 2022!! Mostly High-end: Pat McGrath, Natasha Denona, Charlotte Tilbury, Hourglass, Patrick Ta, MELT, Tom Ford, Dior, HUDA, Drunk Elephant, TATCHA, La Mer, Herbivore, Farmacy, Sunday Riley, etc

Hi Everyone! Thank you to everyone who has purchased from me already! Same process and rules. I will consider all reasonable offers (besides my high end palettes) and if you want even further discounted prices, you can check this post (generally 10% off the prices here). Please note that everything is crossposted and is first come, first serve. I do not do holds; the only way to confirm your items is by paying for them.
My feedback forms are here:
(Most recent: 2023 Pt 1)
https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/104k7ro/2023_muesce_seller_feedback/
(2021) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/p3q3h2/muesce_seller_feedback/
(2022 Pt 1) https://www.reddit.com/usejlanna101/comments/srspyq/2022_muesce_seller_feedback/
I always try to go above and beyond for my buyers and I think my feedback speaks for itself 💯🥰
Now, that’s out of the way, let’s get onto the rules! This is an absolute monster of a list so please go through everything carefully.
RULES/NOTES: PLEASE READ
Lastly, let's keep it fun! Please no drama- I spent hours/days on this post and I’m exhausted. I am one person and am doing my best. If there are any mistakes (wrong picture, blurry, etc) just let me know and I will fix it. I am happy to take any additional pictures and provide extra details. Please ask before purchasing! Also, please note that I will be shipping from Cali so PST time.
Okay, I think that’s it! Thank you for reading and have fun shopping! :)
*RV = Retail Value
EYESHADOW/FACE PALETTES
  1. Pat McGrath Celestial Nirvana $58 RV $82
  2. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Nude Venus) $40 Retails $62
  3. Pat McGrath Divine Blush + Glow Cheek Palette (Shade Divine Rose) $40 Retails $62
  4. Pat McGrath Bronze Bliss eyeshadow palette $30
  5. Pat McGrath Bridgerton 2 $50
  6. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Trio palette $43
  7. Pat McGrath Bridgerton Blushing Delights $40 INSIDE
  8. Pat McGrath Bronze Borealis Quad $40 box is damaged
  9. Pat McGrath Ritualistic Rose Quad $40 RV $65
  10. Natasha Denona Retro Glam $55 RV $69
  11. Natasha Denona My Dream Palette $58 RV $69
  12. Natasha Denona Glam Palette $55 RV $69
  13. Natasha Denona Retro $55 RV $69
  14. Natasha Denona Circo Loco $90 RV $129
  15. Natasha Denona Sunset $85 RV $129
  16. Natasha Denona Biba Palette $60 USED INSIDE Full disclosure- this is an older palette so the formula may be a bit different/not as creamy and pigmented as a new one
  17. Natasha Denona Pastel $53 RV $69
  18. Natasha Denona Zendo Palette $48 (3 2 available) RV $69
  19. Natasha Denona Bronze $45 (4 3 available) RV $69
  20. Natasha Denona Sunrise $42 USED INSIDE
  21. Natasha Denona Love $40 USED INSIDE *Please note that this particular palette was notorious for inconsistencies so some of the shades are not the normal ND creamy formula
  22. Natasha Denona Glam Face (dark version) $43 RV $62
  23. Natasha Denona Glam Face (light version) $43 (2 1 available) RV $62
  24. Natasha Denona Bloom Blush and Glow palette $42 RV $59 INSIDE
  25. Natasha Denona Tan $40 RV $59
  26. Natasha Denona Coral $24 RV $48
  27. Natasha Denona Coral $21 SWATCHED
  28. Natasha Denona Ayana BNWOB $15
  29. Natasha Denona Mini Love $18 RV $27
  30. Natasha Denona Mini Zendo $18 RV $27
  31. Natasha Denona All Over Glow Shade 02 Medium BNWOB INSIDE $18
  32. Huda Empowered $50 RV $67
  33. Huda Rose Quartz palette $48 RV $67
  34. Huda Rose Quartz (used 1x) $40
  35. Huda Naughty palette $46 (4 available) RV $67
  36. Huda Naughty- swatched $38. Close up here
  37. Huda Beauty New Nude $42
  38. Huda Wild Chameleon Palette $19 INSIDE
  39. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk Beautifying Face Palette Medium-Deep $60 RV $75
  40. Charlotte Tilbury Smokey Eyes are Forever $50 RV $75
  41. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk 12 pan palette $45 RV $75 INSIDE (new but no box)
  42. Charlotte Tilbury Super Nudes (6 pans) $40 RV $57
  43. Charlotte Tilbury Easy Eye Darling (6 pans)
  44. $40 for BNIB, $38 for BNWOB, This one is swatched for $35 here
  45. Charlotte Tilbury Filmstar Bronze and Glow (Light to Medium) $48- no box
  46. Charlotte Tilbury Flimstar Bronze and Glow (Medium to Dark) $48
  47. Charlotte Tilbury ‘Dazzling Diamonds’ $35 RV $53 swatched
  48. Charlotte Tilbury Sunset Dreamscape Face Palette RV $75 NO BOXES (discontinued)
  49. I have one BN for $50, one looks touched on the top right shade so $46
  50. I have 2 that are swatched/used with no boxes here Left is $38, Right is $40
  51. Chanel Quad in ‘79 Spices’ $50 Retails $68
  52. Patrick Ta Major Headlines Vol 2 $48 RV $58
  53. Patrick Ta Rose Dimensions 2 Palette $55
  54. Tom Ford Desert Fox $45
  55. Tom Ford Pretty Baby Palette 2 shades broken so $35. I can try to repress for you or you can take it as is
  56. GIVENCHY Le 9.01 $45 RV $65
  57. HOURGLASS Ambient Lighting Palette Vol 3 $40
  58. Melt Mariposas Eyeshadow palette $45
  59. Melt Mariposas Blush palette $35
  60. Melt Cosmetics Mary Jane $43
  61. Melt Cosmetics Smoke Sessions $33 (Had one broken shade at the right that I repressed)
  62. Urban Decay Naked Wild West $33 (2 available)
  63. Urban Decay Naked Honey (used and has 1 repressed shade ‘Amber’) $20
  64. Urban Decay NAKED Foxy Mini palette- $15 RV $29
  65. Too Faced Too Femme palette $30 (3 1 available)
  66. ABH Primrose Palette $40
  67. ABH Primrose- New but repressed 2 shades (‘Rose Water’ and ‘Fire Opal’). Although I did my best to repress, cannot guarantee how they will be during transit. $35 RV $55
  68. ABH Amrezy $35 RV $49 (discontinued)
  69. ABH Amrezy (used and repressed one shade ‘Litty’, no box) $25
  70. ABH Rose Metals $40 RV $55 (2 1 available)
  71. ABH Norvina $29 (2 shades were repressed)
  72. ABH Glow Kit Sugar $22 SWATCHED INSIDE
  73. Tarte Sugar Rush Sweet Tarte Frosted $22 (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades)
  74. Tarte Juicy (Looks BN but to be safe swatched 1 or 2 shades) $22
  75. Jaclyn Hill Rouge Romance 'Rouge Affair' SWATCHED $28 INSIDE
  76. Viseart Tryst 9 pan Palette $22 USED
  77. Jeffree Star Alien palette- discontinued and rare
  78. One still in packaging- make me an offer!
  79. One with no box. I’m going to say swatched 2 shades to be safe - make me an offer! INSIDE
  80. Jeffree Star Blue Blood palette- $30 INSIDE
  81. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar palette $30 INSIDE
Eyeshadow Palettes that are New but Name your price!
  1. ICONIC Sunset to Sunrise Palette
  2. True and Luscious Lucky Glow Palette
  3. Suva Beauty Protege Palette INSIDE
  4. PUR 4-in-1 Face palette in Medium Tan
Eyeshadow Palettes that have been swatched/lightly used- Name your price!
  1. BH Cosmetics It’s My RayeRaye
  2. BH Cosmetics In-Nude-endo INSIDE
  3. Violet Voss Pinky Promise INSIDE
  4. OPVbeauty Spotlight palette INSIDE
  5. Hank and Henry Living in Color palette INSIDE
PRIMERS
  1. Bobbi Brown Vitamin Enriched Eye Base FS
    1. One is BNIB $40, 2 are BNWOB $38
  2. Charlotte Tilbury Brightening Youth Glow $38 RV $55
  3. MAC ‘Painterly’ Paint Pot (used 1x) $12
  4. GLAMGLOW SuperMattify Primer $23
  5. Dr Brandt pores no more Luminizer Primer $15 each (3 available, only one has box)
  6. Urban Decay Primer Potion in shade ‘Eden’ $15
  7. Ole Henriksen Banana primer (used 2x) $18
  8. Tarte Timeless Smoothing Primer $25 (2 1 available)
  9. Too Faced Primed & Poreless+ $15 (box damaged and used 1x)
Mascaras Verification Photo
  1. Charlotte Tilbury Pillow Talk in ‘Super Black’ $20
  2. Lancome Dèfinicils High Definition Lengthening Mascara $18 (2 1 available)
  3. Dermelect XL Lash Volumizer $10
  4. IT cosmetics Superhero Mascara $15 (2 1 available)
  5. Trestique Good Vibes mascara $6
  6. Trestique Good Vibes mascara + Eye pencil $8
  7. Petite n Pretty Fully Feathered Mascara $3
  8. Benefit Lashes all the Way set $15
Setting Powders
  1. ByTerry Hyaluronic Hydra-Powder $35 RV $60
  2. Hourglass Veil Translucent Powder $36 (2 1 available)
Highlighters
  1. Charlotte Tilbury Hollywood Superstar Glow Highlighter- Limited edition/Discontinued $40
  2. Cover FX glitter drops in shade Aurora $12
  3. Cover FX custom drops in shade Blossom $12 (2 1 available)
  4. Cover FX custom drops in shade Halo $12
  5. SAIE Highlighter shade Sunglow $15
LIPS
  1. Jeffree Star Blood Sugar Liquid Lipstick Vault $70 RV $160 (Keep in mind to mix/shake before using as this formula gets clumpy) INSIDE
  2. MAC lipstick in shade Dangerous $8
  3. MAC lipstick in shade So Chaud $8
  4. MAC lipstick in shade Dozen Carnations $8
  5. Bali Balm sweet orange & coconut lip balm $6 (2 1 available)
  6. Primera Clean Berry Lip Mask $12
  7. DOSE OF COLORS lipstick in shade Date Night $8 (2 available, 1 has no box)
  8. TARTE shimmering lip paint in shade Strike Gold $5
  9. YENSA Super 8 Lip Oil in shade ‘On the Mauve’ $8
  10. JOUER Creme Lip Liner in shade pink champagne shimmer $8
  11. ABH liquid lipstick in shade ‘heathers’ $8
  12. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Grape Jelly’ $7
  13. ABH Lip Gloss in shade ‘Maui’ $7 (no box)
  14. Lipstick Queen Nothing but Nudes in shade ‘Tempting Taupes’ (this is new but has sweat spots (does not affect lipstick just cosmetic) $8 INSIDE
  15. Charlotte Tilbury Hyaluronic Happikiss in shade ‘romance kiss’ $25
  16. Charlotte Tilbury Limitless Lucky Lips in shade ‘Cherry Dream’ $18
  17. YSL Slim Glow Matte Rouge in shade ‘217: Intimate Chocolate’ $15
  18. Too Faced Lady Bold lipstick in shade ‘Trailblazer’ $17
  19. Too Faced Lady Bold Lipstick in shade ‘Be True to You’ $17
  20. Whish lip balm in ‘pink champagne’ $10
  21. Tarte Maneater plumping gloss $10
  22. Iconic London Lip plumping gloss in shade ‘S*x Kitten’ $12 (no box)
  23. Lancome L’absolu Rouge in shade ‘120 Sienna’ $18 SWATCHED
  24. Bobbi Brown Luxe Shine Intense Lipstick in shade ‘Claret’ $18 SWATCHED
  25. GLOW RECIPE Watermelon lip pop $12 (no box)
  26. GLOW RECIPE Blueberry lip pop $12
  27. MELT Warm Nudes Mini Set $25
  28. Jeffree Star Velvet Trap in shade Confessional $12 (no box)
  29. Natasha Denona Lip Color 34 Fuchsia Red $14
BLUSHES
  1. Rodial Blush Drops $12
BRONZERS
  1. Marc Jacobs O!mega Bronzer in shade ‘Tantalize’ $35 (new but no box) INSIDE
  2. Huda Glowish in shade ‘Light 01’ $20
  3. ABH Powder Bronzer in shade ‘Saddle’ $18
  4. LYS Beauty Bronzer in shade ‘Motivate’ $10
Eyeshadow Liquids/Singles
  1. HAUS Labs Liquid Shimmer Powder in shade ‘Legend’ $8
  2. DOSE OF COLORS single eyeshadow in shade ‘Jackpot’ $5
  3. MELT eyeshadow single in shade ‘Amelie’ $8
EYELINER and BROWS
  1. Charlotte Tilbury Legendary Brown Tinted Brow Gel in shade ‘Soft Brown’ $18 BNWOB
  2. Benefit Gimme Brow+ in shade ‘3’ $12
  3. ABH Brow Bae-sics Deluxe Kit in shade ‘Taupe’ $20
  4. Laura Geller line-n-define in shade Black $5
  5. MELT Allday Everyday Eyeliner in shade ‘Baked’ $12
FOUNDATION/Concealer
  1. Pat McGrath Skin Fetish Sublime Perfection concealer in shade ‘L1’ used 1x $25
  2. BECCA Ultimate Coverage foundation shade ‘Vanilla’ $15
  3. BECCA Ultimate Coverage in shade ‘Linen’ Used 2x $5 (Keep in mind this is a thicker formula)
  4. Natasha Denona Transformatte foundation in shade ‘22W’ $15
  5. Too Faced Born this Way concealer in shade ‘Chestnut’ used 2x $10
  6. KVD Lock it powder foundation in shade Light 125 $20
  7. BareMinerals BAREPRO Performance Wear Liquid Foundation in shade ‘Shell 7.5’ $10 used 2x
  8. Bobbi Brown Fluid Powder Foundation in shade ‘N-070’ used 2x $10
BRUSHES
  1. MODA Powder and Soft Glow Brush $12
  2. MODA 5 pc Deluxe eye Kit $15
  3. LUXIE Glitter and Gold 9 piece Brush Set $30 (2 available)
  4. Too Faced Mr. Chiseled Contouring Brush $14
SKINCARE:
  1. Tatcha Water Cream $52 Retails $70
  2. Tatcha The Essence 2.5 fl oz (sealed) $40 Retails $65
  3. Tatcha The Essence (sealed) 5.0 fl oz $68 Retails $110
  4. Tatcha the Silk Peony $40 Retails $62
  5. Drunk Elephant C-Firma Fresh Day Serum $55 RV $78 (2 available)
  6. Drunk Elephant TLC Framboos Glycolic Night Serum $62 RV $90 (3 available)
  7. Drunk elephant A-Passioni Retinol Cream $50 RV $74(2 available)
  8. Drunk elephant Virgin Marula Facial Oil $45 RV $68
  9. Drunk Elephant Protini Powerpeptide Resurf Serum $58 RV $82 (3 available)
  10. Drunk Elephant TLC Sukari Babyfacial $58 RV $80
  11. Drunk Elephant Shaba Complex Eye Serum $43 RV $60
  12. Drunk Elephant C-Tango Eye Cream $40 RV $64
  13. La Mer Moisturizing Cream $45 RV $95 (Yes, La Mer is expensive af lol) 0.5 oz/ 15mL BOTTOM NO BOX
  14. Bobbi Brown Hydrating Face Cream $38 RV $64
  15. Dr. Brandt Time Defying Cream FS $30 RV $135
  16. Dr. Brandt Triple Antioxidant Eye Cream $18 (3 2 available)
  17. ELEMIS Superfood Glow Priming moisturizer $18 (2 1 available)
  18. Sunday Riley Tidal (new but beat up box) $35
  19. SUNDAY RILEY Light Hearted Sunscreen $30
  20. FARMACY Daily Greens Moisturizer $25 (2 1 available)
  21. Farmacy Cheer Up Cherry Eye Cream $18
  22. Grown Alchemist Detox Night Cream $18 (2 1 available)
  23. Lancome Lait Galatee Confort Makeup Remover $25
  24. Lancome Tonique Confort Hydrating Facial Toner $25
  25. Saturday Skin Glycolic Toner $18
  26. BeautyStat Universal C Eye Perfector $20 RV $65
  27. Biossance Squalane and Omega Repair Cream $38 RV $58 (no box)
  28. Malin + Goetz recovery treatment oil $30 RV $82
  29. Grown Alchemist Matte Balancing Moisturizer
  30. One BNIB $20, one BN but no box $18
  31. First Aid Beauty Facial Radiance Pads 28 count $10
  32. Alpha-H Liquid Gold with Glycolic Acid 100 mL $30 RV $54
  33. Glo Skin Beauty Pro 5 liquid exfoliant $28 RV $58 (box is a little banged up)
  34. Algenist Triple Algae Eye Renewal Balm $25 RV $68
  35. AHC eye cream $15
  36. Clinique pep-start eye cream $13
  37. Juice beauty Stem Cellular Anti-Wrinkle Eye treatment $25 RV $50
SERUMS
  1. Tatcha Dewy Serum $60 RV $89
  2. Estee lauder Night Repair Serum 1.7 fl oz $65 Retails $110
  3. Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Concentrate $50 RV $82
  4. Farmacy 1% Vitamin A Retinol Serum $40 RV $60
  5. Herbivore Bakuchiol Serum $40 RV $54 (2 available)
  6. Herbivore Emerald Oil used 1x and no box $25
  7. Biossance Squalane Phyto-Retinol Serum $50 FS RV $72
  8. Biossance Squalane Dark Spot Serum 15 mL $30
  9. Biossance Squalane Night Serum 1 fl oz/30 mL $ $35 RV $62 (no box)
  10. Algenist Elevate Advanced Retinol Serum $30 RV $98 (box is banged up)
  11. AKAR restore eye serum $30 RV $85 0.3 oz/10 mL
CLEANSERS
  1. La Mer the Cleansing Foam 1 oz $20
  2. Glow Recipe Papaya Sorbet Cleansing Balm $23
  3. Dr. Brandt Microdermabrasion Exfoliator $30 RV $79
  4. Kate Somerville ExfoliKate Exfoliating Treatment $50 RV $98 2 fl oz (no box)
  5. Korres Greek Yoghurt Foaming Cleanser $16 (packaging is a little dirty but sealed)
  6. Origins Never a Dull Moment Skin-Brightening Face Polisher $15
  7. OSEA Ocean Cleanser .6 oz/18 mL (2 available) $6 each
  8. Perricone MD Vitamin C Citrus Cleanser $15
MASKS
  1. Glow Recipe Watermelon Clay Facial $40 SEALED
  2. Herbivore Brighten Instant Glow Mask $30 (2 available)
  3. Glow Recipe Avocado Mask $26
  4. FARMACY Bright on Vitamin C Mask $22
  5. ELEMIS Superfood Veggie Mask $18
  6. Milk Makeup Watermelon Face Mask $18
  7. Dr. Brandt Vacuum Cleaner $20 RV $42
  8. GLAMGLOW YouthMud Glow Stimulating & Exfoliating Treatment Mask 1 oz/30 g $12 each
    1. Only 1 has box but both BN
  9. Origins Ginzing Peel Off Mask 2.5 fl oz $16
  10. NudeStix Lemon-Aid Detox and micro-peel $12
  11. TRULY Golden leaf CBD Face mask $22
  12. Avant 8 hour radiance renewal sleeping mask 1.69 fl oz $20
SETS
  1. Tatcha No-Filter Essentials $54
  2. Laneige Basic Duo Set $43
  3. La Mer Set $100 ($250 value) BACK
HAIR Verification Photo
  1. IGK Prenup Instant Spray Hair Mask $12
  2. IGK Mistress Hair balm $14
  3. AG Hair Care Fast Food Leave on Conditioner $18
  4. Moroccanoil Perfect Defense Spray $13
  5. Christophe Robin Daily Hair Cream $18
  6. Living Proof forming paste $12
  7. Moroccan Leave in Mask $12
MISC
  1. Sol De Janeiro Rio Deo Deodorant (sealed) $10
  2. Lilly Lashes Lash Enhancing Serum $25
  3. Eyeko Eyelash Curler $8
  4. Dolce and Gabbana The One Perfume
    1. One is 50 mL/ 1.6 Fl Oz $60 RV $96 (to be safe I’ll say used 1x)
    2. One is 75 mL/2.5 oz $80 RV $125 SEALED
  5. Dolce and Gabbana Dolce Garden Travel Spray 0.25 oz/7.5 mL $18
  6. Herbivore Coco Rose Body Scrub $18
  7. Velour Lashes in style ‘Caption This‘ $10
  8. MAC Lashes in style ‘B90’ $10
  9. Lashaholic in style ‘Kiss Me’ $10
  10. FENTY What it Dew Spray $15
  11. OSEA Sea Minerals Mist $18
  12. M. Greengrass dry oil spray $10
  13. TRULY Berry Cheeky $22
  14. Ice Roller $10 Back is cut here- idk how that happened but otherwise sealed
Jeffree Star Red Beanie- name your price
submitted by jlanna101 to makeupexchange [link] [comments]


2023.03.03 22:28 HockeyMods [Serious] Post Trade Deadline Discussion Thread

Here's a thread to discuss all of today and the past week's trades and signings.
First, a very special thank you to our "Approved Submitters" who applied and helped on this very busy day by making well written news postings. Thank you austin63867, twistedlogicx, SAJewers, Randompunkt, Sandman730, chiasmatic, and homicidal_penguin. And a special thank you to all the mods who helped out, you know who you are!
Team A Receives Team B Receives /hockey Thread Notes
MIN John Klingberg (50% retained) ANA Andrej Sustr, Nikita Nesterenko, 2025 4th Link
ARI Brett Ritchie, Connor Mackey CGY Nick Ritchie, Troy Stecher Link
CHI Austin Wagner LAK Future Considerations Link
NYR Wyatt Kalynuk VAN Future Considerations Link
BUF 2025 7th (NSH) NSH Rasmus Asplund Link
COL Gustav Rydahl NYR Anton Blidh Link
ANA Brock McGinn, 2024 3rd (PIT) PIT Dmitry Kulikov (50% retained) Link
DET 2023 4th (MIN) MIN Oskar Sundqvist Link
OTT Patrick Brown PHI 2023 6th (OTT) Link
BUF Jordan Greenway MIN 2023 2nd (VGK), 2024 5th (BUF) Link
CGY Dryden Hunt TOR Radim Zohorna Link
DAL Scott Reedy SJS Jacob Peterson Link
ANA Chase Priskie BUF Austin Strand Link
SJS 2025 4th (WPG) WPG Vladislav Namestnikov Link
PIT Nick Bonino (50% retained) SJS Arvid Henrikson, 2023 7th (PIT), 2024 Conditional 5th (PIT) Link MTL brokered the deal, retaining 50% on Bonino and receiving Tony Sund and a 2024 5th (SJS)
LAK Nathan Schnarr MTL Frédéric Allard Link
LAK Zack MacEwen PHI Brendan Lemieux, 2024 5th (LAK) Link
NJD Curtis Lazar VAN 2024 4th (NJD) Link
DET Dylan McLaughlin, 2025 7th (STL) STL Jakub Vrána (50% retained) Link
CHI Anton Khudobin, 2025 2nd (DAL) DAL Max Domi, Dylan Wells Link
ANA Dylan Sikura CHI Maxim Golod Link
ARI Michael Kesselring, 2023 3rd (EDM) EDM Nick Bjugstad (50% retained), Cam Dineen Link
BUF Future Considerations CHI Anders Bjork Link
CBJ Michael Hutchinson, 2025 7th (VGK) LAK Jonathan Quick (50% retained) Link
ARI Jakub Voracek, 2023 6th rd pick (CBJ) CBJ Jon Gillies Link
BOS Tyler Bertuzzi (50% retained) DET 2024 1st rd pick (BOS)*, 2025 4th rd pick (BOS) Link 1st rd pick is top 10 protected
NSH 2023 2nd rd pick (PIT) PIT Mikael Granlund Link
SJS Vladislav Namestnikov TBL Michael Eyssimont Link
PIT Peter Diliberatore, 2024 3rd rd pick (VGK) VGK Teddy Blueger Link
BUF 2023 3rd rd pick (LAK) LAK Erik Portillo Link
ARI 2023 1st rd pick (OTT), 2024 2nd rd pick (WSH), 2026 2nd rd pick (OTT) OTT Jakob Chychrun Link 2023 1st is top 5 protected. Becomes unprotected 2024 1st otherwise. If OTT makes 2023 ECF, 2024 2nd becomes a 1st.
VAN Filip Hronek, 2023 4th Rd pick (DET) DET 2023 1st Rd pick (NYI), 2023 2nd Rd pick (VAN) Link
CAR Shayne Gostisbehere ARI 2026 3rd Rd pick (CAR) Link
COL Lars Eller (31% retained) WSH 2025 2nd rd pick (COL) Link
CBJ Jonathan Quick, 2023 1st rd pick (LAK)*, 2024 4th rd pick (LAK) LAK Joonas Korpisalo, Vladislav Gavrikov Link If LAK do not qualify for the 2023 playoffs, CBJ will receive LAK's 2nd rd picks in 2023 and 2024
CHI Vili Saarijarvi, Andy Welinski, 2023 2nd rd pick (NYR)*, 2025 4th rd pick (NYR) NYR Patrick Kane (75% retained), Cooper Zech Link ARI brokered the deal, retaining 25% of Kane's salary (CHI retained half), and received a 2025 3rd rd pick (better of DAL and NYR's). The NYR 2023 2nd rd pick becomes a 1st in 2024 (top 10 protected) or 2025 if NYR makes the ECF.
CBJ 2023 5th rd pick (BOS) MIN Gustav Nyquist (50% retained) Link
EDM Mattias Ekholm (4% retained), 2024 6th rd pick (NSH) NSH Tyson Barrie, Reid Schaefer, 2023 1st rd pick (EDM), 2024 4th rd pick (EDM) Link
NSH Austin Rueschhoff NYR Future Considerations Link
TOR Luke Schenn VAN 2023 3rd rd pick (TOR) Link
TOR 2024 3rd rd pick (NYI) NYI Pierre Engvall Link
TOR Erik Gustafsson, 2023 1st rd pick (BOS) WAS Rasmus Sandin Link
MIN Marcus Johansson WAS 2024 3rd rd pick (MIN) Link
ANA 2024 3rd rd pick (SJS) SJS Henry Thrun Link
CAR Jesse Puljujarvi EDM Patrik Puistola Link
BUF Riley Stillman VAN Josh Bloom Link
CHI Joey Anderson, Pavel Gogolev, 2025 1st rd pick (TOR)*, 2026 2nd rd pick (TOR) TOR Jake McCabe (50% retained), Sam Lafferty, 2024 4th rd pick (CHI)*, 2025 5th rd pick (CHI) Link 2025 1st rder acquired by CHI is top 10 protected, the 5th transferred to TOR will be the lowest of the 2024 5th rd picks that CHI owns
NSH Isaac Ratcliffe PHI Future Considerations Link
NSH Cal Foote, 2023 3rd rd pick, 2023 4th rd pick, 2023 5th rd pick, 2024 2nd rd pick, 2025 1st rd pick (all TBL, 1st is top 10 protected) TBL Tanner Jeannot Link
NJD Scott Harrington, Timo Meier (50% retained), Zacharie Emond, Santeri Hatakka, Timur Ibragimov SJS Andreas Johnsson, Fabian Zetterlund, Nikita Okhotiuk, Shakir Mukhamadullin, 2023 1st rd pick (SJS), 2024 2nd rd pick (NJD), 2024 7th rd pick (NJD) Link If the NJD 1st is top 2, NJD will transfer their own 2024 1st rd pick. If NJD makes the 2023 ECF and Meier plays in 50% of the games, or NJD makes the 2024 ECF, the pick becomes NJD's 2024 1st.
CHI Andreas Englund COL Jack Johnson Link
STL Zach Dean VGK Ivan Barbashev Link
DAL Evgeni Dadonov (50% retained) MTL Denis Gurianov Link
NSH 2024 2nd rd pick WPG Nino Niederreiter Link
NYR William Lockwood, 2026 7th rd pick (VAN) VAN Vitali Kravtsov Link
BOS Shane Bowers COL Keith Kinkaid Link
BOS Garnet Hathaway, Andrei Svetlakov, Dmitry Orlov (75% retained) WSH Craig Smith, 2023 1st rd pick (BOS), 2024 3rd rd pick (BOS), 2025 2nd rd pick (BOS) Link MIN brokered the deal and retained 25% of Orlov's salary, and received a 2023 5th rd pick (BOS)
ANA Josiah Slavin CHI Hunter Drew Link
CHI Nikita Zaitsev, 2023 2nd rd pick (OTT), 2026 4th rd pick (OTT) OTT Future Considerations Link
ARI Shea Weber, 2023 5th rd pick (VGK) VGK Dysin Mayo Link
NYR Tyler Motte OTT Julien Gauthier, 2023 7th rd pick (NYR)* Link 7th rd pick becomes a 6th if NYR advances to the 2nd rd of the 2023 playoffs
STL Adam Gaudette, Mikhail Abramov, 2023 1st rd pick (TOR), 2023 3rd rd pick (OTT), 2024 2nd rd pick (TOR) TOR Ryan O'Reilly (50% retained), Josh Pillar, Noel Acciari Link MIN brokered the deal, retained 50% of O'Reilly's salary. They received a 2025 4th rd pick (TOR).
NYR Vladimiar Tarasenko (50% retained), Niko Mikkola STL Samuel Blais, Hunter Skinner, 2023 1st rd pick (NYR), 2024 4th rd pick (NYR) Link The 1st STL received will be the later of DAL and NYR's picks. If NYR makes the playoffs in 2023, the 2024 4th becomes a 3rd
SJS 2023 4th rd pick (SEA)* SEA Jaycob Megna Link Seattle decides to give their own or COL's 4th
NYI Bo Horvat (25% retained) VAN Anthony Beauvillier, Aatu Raty, 2023 1st rd pick (NYI)* Link The pick becomes a 2024 1st if in the top 12
submitted by HockeyMods to hockey [link] [comments]


2023.03.03 16:01 hockeydiscussionbot 2023 Trade Deadline and Daily Free Talk Megathread - Plus, game thread links & live scores/video replays inside - 03 Mar 2023

This Megathread will serve as a hub for news and discussion related to the 2023 trade deadline! The mods will do their best to update this as trades are made, let us know if we have missed anything. If there are multiple posts about each trade, we'll link the one here that has the most engagement.

Today's Games

Away Score Home Score Time GDT PGT
SEA 4 CBJ 2 Final Link Link
WPG 3 EDM 6 Final Link Link
CAR 6 ARI 1 Final Link Link
MTL 2 ANA 3 Final Link Link
NJD 3 VGK 4 Final (SO) Link Link
Standings Stats Leaders Most Recent Highlight Goal Highlights
Link Link Nick Suzuki (21) Wrist Shot, assists: Christian Dvorak (18), Jonathan Drouin (19) Link

Yesterday's Games

Away Score Home Score Time PGT Next-Day PGT
BUF 1 BOS 7 Final Link
NSH 2 FLA 1 Final Link
OTT 5 NYR 3 Final Link
PIT 5 TBL 4 Final (OT) Link
SEA 5 DET 4 Final (OT) Link
DAL 5 CHI 2 Final Link
TOR 2 CGY 1 Final Link
MIN 2 VAN 1 Final Link
MTL 2 LAK 3 Final Link
STL 6 SJS 3 Final Link
Goal Highlights
Link

Regular Threads

Mod News/Threads

Team A Receives Team B Receives /hockey Thread Notes
MIN John Klingberg (50% retained) ANA Andrej Sustr, Nikita Nesterenko, 2025 4th Link
ARI Brett Ritchie, Connor Mackey CGY Nick Ritchie, Troy Stecher Link
CHI Austin Wagner LAK Future Considerations Link
NYR Wyatt Kalynuk VAN Future Considerations Link
BUF 2025 7th (NSH) NSH Rasmus Asplund Link
COL Gustav Rydahl NYR Anton Blidh Link
ANA Brock McGinn, 2024 3rd (PIT) PIT Dmitry Kulikov (50% retained) Link
DET 2023 4th (MIN) MIN Oskar Sundqvist Link
OTT Patrick Brown PHI 2023 6th (OTT) Link
BUF Jordan Greenway MIN 2023 2nd (VGK), 2024 5th (BUF) Link
CGY Dryden Hunt TOR Radim Zohorna Link
DAL Scott Reedy SJS Jacob Peterson Link
ANA Chase Priskie BUF Austin Strand Link
SJS 2025 4th (WPG) WPG Vladislav Namestnikov Link
PIT Nick Bonino (50% retained) SJS Arvid Henrikson, 2023 7th (PIT), 2024 Conditional 5th (PIT) Link MTL brokered the deal, retaining 50% on Bonino and receiving Tony Sund and a 2024 5th (SJS)
LAK Nathan Schnarr MTL Frédéric Allard Link
LAK Zack MacEwen PHI Brendan Lemieux, 2024 5th (LAK) Link
NJD Curtis Lazar VAN 2024 4th (NJD) Link
DET Dylan McLaughlin, 2025 7th (STL) STL Jakub Vrána (50% retained) Link
CHI Anton Khudobin, 2025 2nd (DAL) DAL Max Domi, Dylan Wells Link
ANA Dylan Sikura CHI Maxim Golod Link
ARI Michael Kesselring, 2023 3rd (EDM) EDM Nick Bjugstad (50% retained), Cam Dineen Link
BUF Future Considerations CHI Anders Bjork Link
CBJ Michael Hutchinson, 2025 7th (VGK) LAK Jonathan Quick (50% retained) Link
ARI Jakub Voracek, 2023 6th rd pick (CBJ) CBJ Jon Gillies Link
BOS Tyler Bertuzzi (50% retained) DET 2024 1st rd pick (BOS)*, 2025 4th rd pick (BOS) Link 1st rd pick is top 10 protected
NSH 2023 2nd rd pick (PIT) PIT Mikael Granlund Link
SJS Vladislav Namestnikov TBL Michael Eyssimont Link
PIT Peter Diliberatore, 2024 3rd rd pick (VGK) VGK Teddy Blueger Link
BUF 2023 3rd rd pick (LAK) LAK Erik Portillo Link
ARI 2023 1st rd pick (OTT), 2024 2nd rd pick (WSH), 2026 2nd rd pick (OTT) OTT Jakob Chychrun Link 2023 1st is top 5 protected. Becomes unprotected 2024 1st otherwise. If OTT makes 2023 ECF, 2024 2nd becomes a 1st.
VAN Filip Hronek, 2023 4th Rd pick (DET) DET 2023 1st Rd pick (NYI), 2023 2nd Rd pick (VAN) Link
CAR Shayne Gostisbehere ARI 2026 3rd Rd pick (CAR) Link
COL Lars Eller (31% retained) WSH 2025 2nd rd pick (COL) Link
CBJ Jonathan Quick, 2023 1st rd pick (LAK)*, 2024 4th rd pick (LAK) LAK Joonas Korpisalo, Vladislav Gavrikov Link If LAK do not qualify for the 2023 playoffs, CBJ will receive LAK's 2nd rd picks in 2023 and 2024
CHI Vili Saarijarvi, Andy Welinski, 2023 2nd rd pick (NYR)*, 2025 4th rd pick (NYR) NYR Patrick Kane (75% retained), Cooper Zech Link ARI brokered the deal, retaining 25% of Kane's salary (CHI retained half), and received a 2025 3rd rd pick (better of DAL and NYR's). The NYR 2023 2nd rd pick becomes a 1st in 2024 (top 10 protected) or 2025 if NYR makes the ECF.
CBJ 2023 5th rd pick (BOS) MIN Gustav Nyquist (50% retained) Link
EDM Mattias Ekholm (4% retained), 2024 6th rd pick (NSH) NSH Tyson Barrie, Reid Schaefer, 2023 1st rd pick (EDM), 2024 4th rd pick (EDM) Link
NSH Austin Rueschhoff NYR Future Considerations Link
TOR Luke Schenn VAN 2023 3rd rd pick (TOR) Link
TOR 2024 3rd rd pick (NYI) NYI Pierre Engvall Link
TOR Erik Gustafsson, 2023 1st rd pick (BOS) WAS Rasmus Sandin Link
MIN Marcus Johansson WAS 2024 3rd rd pick (MIN) Link
ANA 2024 3rd rd pick (SJS) SJS Henry Thrun Link
CAR Jesse Puljujarvi EDM Patrik Puistola Link
BUF Riley Stillman VAN Josh Bloom Link
CHI Joey Anderson, Pavel Gogolev, 2025 1st rd pick (TOR)*, 2026 2nd rd pick (TOR) TOR Jake McCabe (50% retained), Sam Lafferty, 2024 4th rd pick (CHI)*, 2025 5th rd pick (CHI) Link 2025 1st rder acquired by CHI is top 10 protected, the 5th transferred to TOR will be the lowest of the 2024 5th rd picks that CHI owns
NSH Isaac Ratcliffe PHI Future Considerations Link
NSH Cal Foote, 2023 3rd rd pick, 2023 4th rd pick, 2023 5th rd pick, 2024 2nd rd pick, 2025 1st rd pick (all TBL, 1st is top 10 protected) TBL Tanner Jeannot Link
NJD Scott Harrington, Timo Meier (50% retained), Zacharie Emond, Santeri Hatakka, Timur Ibragimov SJS Andreas Johnsson, Fabian Zetterlund, Nikita Okhotiuk, Shakir Mukhamadullin, 2023 1st rd pick (SJS), 2024 2nd rd pick (NJD), 2024 7th rd pick (NJD) Link If the NJD 1st is top 2, NJD will transfer their own 2024 1st rd pick. If NJD makes the 2023 ECF and Meier plays in 50% of the games, or NJD makes the 2024 ECF, the pick becomes NJD's 2024 1st.
CHI Andreas Englund COL Jack Johnson Link
STL Zach Dean VGK Ivan Barbashev Link
DAL Evgeni Dadonov (50% retained) MTL Denis Gurianov Link
NSH 2024 2nd rd pick WPG Nino Niederreiter Link
NYR William Lockwood, 2026 7th rd pick (VAN) VAN Vitali Kravtsov Link
BOS Shane Bowers COL Keith Kinkaid Link
BOS Garnet Hathaway, Andrei Svetlakov, Dmitry Orlov (75% retained) WSH Craig Smith, 2023 1st rd pick (BOS), 2024 3rd rd pick (BOS), 2025 2nd rd pick (BOS) Link MIN brokered the deal and retained 25% of Orlov's salary, and received a 2023 5th rd pick (BOS)
ANA Josiah Slavin CHI Hunter Drew Link
CHI Nikita Zaitsev, 2023 2nd rd pick (OTT), 2026 4th rd pick (OTT) OTT Future Considerations Link
ARI Shea Weber, 2023 5th rd pick (VGK) VGK Dysin Mayo Link
NYR Tyler Motte OTT Julien Gauthier, 2023 7th rd pick (NYR)* Link 7th rd pick becomes a 6th if NYR advances to the 2nd rd of the 2023 playoffs
STL Adam Gaudette, Mikhail Abramov, 2023 1st rd pick (TOR), 2023 3rd rd pick (OTT), 2024 2nd rd pick (TOR) TOR Ryan O'Reilly (50% retained), Josh Pillar, Noel Acciari Link MIN brokered the deal, retained 50% of O'Reilly's salary. They received a 2025 4th rd pick (TOR).
NYR Vladimiar Tarasenko (50% retained), Niko Mikkola STL Samuel Blais, Hunter Skinner, 2023 1st rd pick (NYR), 2024 4th rd pick (NYR) Link The 1st STL received will be the later of DAL and NYR's picks. If NYR makes the playoffs in 2023, the 2024 4th becomes a 3rd
SJS 2023 4th rd pick (SEA)* SEA Jaycob Megna Link Seattle decides to give their own or COL's 4th
NYI Bo Horvat (25% retained) VAN Anthony Beauvillier, Aatu Raty, 2023 1st rd pick (NYI)* Link The pick becomes a 2024 1st if in the top 12

Some useful resources

What is a Daily Free Talk Thread? Use it to talk about anything related to hockey, ask quick questions, or any other daily chatter. It's also your hub for links to Game Day Threads, live scores, daily stats and standings, and a way to compile recent news and announcements for easy viewing. You can view a collection of all video replays by opening the stickied mod comment below. It updates throughout the night.
If you have specific feedback about these threads please message the mods. Bot is maintained by sandman730. Message him with any bugs.
submitted by hockeydiscussionbot to hockey [link] [comments]


2023.03.02 18:58 SituationLive4406 Next Gen Battery Tech $KULR, Over 300 Current Clients Including the DoD, Lockheed Martin and NASA

Next Gen Battery Tech $KULR, Over 300 Current Clients Including the DoD, Lockheed Martin and NASA
If you love the stock as much as I do help spread the word!
One of my favorite "HIGH GROWETH" stocks with continuing adoption of their technology and a huge addressable market in Battery technology. Over 300 current clients and a provider to or in partnership with the DoD, Lockheed Martin and NASA to name a few.
Recent analyst coverage calling for 400% upside from yesterday's close. More on this below.
KULR Technology Group Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) develops, manufactures, and licenses carbon fiber thermal management technologies for batteries and electronic systems. KULR enables leading aerospace, electronics, energy storage, 5G infrastructure, and electric vehicle manufacturers to make their products cooler, lighter and much safer.
KULR looks like a great value here, and I consider it a potential pre-catalyst opportunity. I say that because KULR has several industries, including EV manufacturers that will most likely adopt their tech soon.
This Weeks News from KULR is Extremely Significant
We had to do some digging to find some of this information for you**. So first, let's look at the press release from Tuesday.**
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 28, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced it secured a $2.68 million follow-on contract as the exclusive supplier of its patented and proprietary fail-safe Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) battery solutions for a stationary and mobile lithium-ion battery power system manufacturer (the “Customer”). After extensive design and testing efforts, this order represents KULR's single largest PPR deployment order in a stationary or mobile energy product to date. This is a follow-on order as the Customer prepares to scale towards the full automation of its battery assembly operations, whilst KULR expands its automated PPR component manufacturing in North America.
The Customer relied on KULR’s PPR solution in designing, testing, and meeting the stringent UL 9540 (Field-Listed with Energy Storage Systems) and UL 9540A (Cell/Module/Pack-Tested) certification of its stationary lithium-ion battery pack systems, which in turn led to rigorous testing and passing of the safety threshold established by the Canadian Standards Association Group (“CSA”), an independent testing body that is a leader in standards development, testing, inspection and certification.
The Customer’s lithium-ion battery systems have been authorized as safe to use in occupied buildings. The systems can be configured to provide from 50 KWh (“Kilowatt-hours”) to 5 MWh (“Megawatt-hours”) of distributed energy storage at the point-of-use where applications range from medical and research complexes, residential and commercial buildings, to remote data centers and manufacturing facilities. The systems also provide fully renewable mobile energy solutions for construction equipment, waste disposal, last-mile delivery, as well as other portable industrial markets.
KULR’s PPR design solutions enable energy storage systems a longer life cycle and allow completely self-contained safe battery solutions to meet the demands of the heavy construction and manufacturing sector while opening new opportunities for KULR with industrial customers seeking to buy and store electricity during less-expensive off-peak times – offsetting the need for gas-powered generators as backup power. The state of California will require portable gas-powered generators to be zero-emissions by 2028, potentially another boon for KULR.
"We are pleased to be the exclusive supplier of fail-safe stationary storage battery solutions for this Customer’s significant buildout,” said KULR CEO Michael Mo. “The reality is that there will be many more projects like this one coming to market soon, especially with the Inflation Reduction Act amplifying demand for safe and clean stationary energy storage. We know solutions that promote battery safety are of great importance for utility and industrial energy storage providers and it’s our belief that KULR offers one of the safest and most cost-effective energy storage technologies in the marketplace.”
The stationary battery storage market is set to surpass USD $870 billion by 2032, according to a research report by Global Market Insights Inc. published in late 2022.
This latest Customer order follows the recent announcement that KULR commenced Phase 2 development of its PPR battery systems for Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Advanced Energy Systems. As KULR continues to collaborate with entities such as the United States Department of Defense ("DoD"), NASA, and major defense manufacturers, KULR is steadily leveraging its thermal design expertise beyond government contracts, rechanneling its PPR applications from military purposes to commercial enterprise, for uses such as energy storage systems, e-mobility, and cloud computing. FULL PRESS RELEASE
Ok so, the client is a company called Viridi Parente located in Buffalo, NY they are the manufacturer of the only distributed energy storage system that is safe powerful, affordable, and scalable enough to make the zero-carbon energy revolution a reality.
Like KULR they are fast growing energy technology company.
From Viridi's website: "Viridi designs and builds fail-safe battery systems that are redefining energy storage and powering the transition to renewable energy, providing on-demand, affordable power for use in industrial, medical, commercial, municipal, and residential building applications."
Viridi's Applications are Driving Industries, Institutions, Cties and the Country. (Not just cars.)
Virtually every automobile OEM is competing for 3% of the GDP!
Given the amount of media attention surrounding EVs, or electric vehicles, it might be surprising to learn that virtually every automobile manufacturer is competing for only 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — the measure used to determine the size and health of our economy. This means that if every EV competitor succeeds, it still leaves 97% of the economy behind. That’s hardly a revolution, and not even close to the transformation we need in order to achieve a resilient future.
Viridi’s mission is to power the other 97% of the GDP, providing zero-carbon energy for governments, infrastructure systems across the country, medical and academic institutions, industries of every kind, and commercial and residential built environments. As the only manufacturer of fail-safe lithium-ion battery technology that’s been approved for use in occupied spaces, Viridi is in a unique position to accomplish this.
Viridi’s products are fail-safe. Viridi’s products incorporate thermal-management technology developed by KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR), a company that has its origins in cooling solutions developed for NASA space missions. Fail-Safe technology means Viridi goes wherever energy is needed. Its battery system has been rigorously tested in extreme conditions and passed the safety threshold established by CSA, a leading independent testing body.
Viridi lithium-ion battery systems are ready now to power the 97%.
Ok, now let's take another look at that $2.68M exclusive supplier contract KULR just signed with Viridi.
"KULR secures $2.68 million follow-on contract as the exclusive supplier of its patented and proprietary fail-safe Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) battery solutions for a stationary and mobile lithium-ion battery power system manufacturer."
So, we could conclude that there will be many, many more orders of this magnitude coming from Viridi.
Here is the Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) system and the web page that lead us to this conclusion.
Inside the first fail-safe lithium-ion battery system
Now is the time to focus on KULR again as this high growth company has a $7.00 price target from Litchfield Hills Research (upside potential over 400% from yesterday's close) and several key highlights and potential catalysts.
The Virdi contract is not the only major announcement from KULR this year. KULR has had several big company announcements in 2023.
  • Revenue Appears To Be Off The Charts, Preliminary 4th quarter Anticipated 137% Growth
  • Key Patent Awarded On KULR's SafeCase Tech
  • KULR Continues Global Electrification Movement With New Partnership
  • Company Secures First KULR VIBE Client (One Of Top Civilian Helicopter Operators Globally)
More on those in second...
KULR Technology Group's Space-proven Solutions For Electronics And Lithium-ion Batteries
KULR’s disruptive thermal management technologies strive to fulfill an addressable $24Bn thermal management systems market.
KULR’s integrated design approach offers comprehensive solutions in thermal interface materials, lightweight heat exchangers, and protection against lithium-ion battery thermal runaway propagation.
Their high-performance solutions can be designed to fit almost any power or electronic configuration, including extremely demanding spaces or for applications where size and weight restrictions are a concern.
Making The World Of Electronics Cooler, Lighter, And Safer
Since 2016, the company has witnessed dramatic changes in the world of electronics with an automotive industry transitioning into the electrification of vehicles and the advent of 5G communications technologies that will accelerate cloud computing growth.
Such applications have progressively become more powerful and often require improved forms of thermal management or electronics and battery cooling technologies.
The company's plan of execution starts with providing their customers with the best battery testing methodologies as well as cost-effective cooling technologies that outperform traditional solutions, delivering a reliable, safer, and more energy-efficient product to the end-user.
Fully Integrated Thermal Solutions For Aerospace And Defense Applications
Thermal management for aerospace and defense applications are mission critical. Technology in this sector is developing at increasing rates, with devices being placed into aircrafts, satellites, and missiles becoming ever smaller, and all the more powerful.
KULR Technology can help the implementation of these technologies through proven energy and thermal management solutions. Bank of America predicts the space industry will be worth nearly $3Tn in 30 years.
In particular, space electronics face harsh thermal environments in vacuum. They are exposed to severe shock, vibration, and extreme temperature swings throughout the duration of flight operation. The weight and volume of cooling solutions is the most important constraint in space applications. KULR’s solution offers superior mass and weight advantages with its carbon fiber architecture for a variety of space applications.
In fact, KULR’s technology has its beginnings in the space industry having won over 30 contracts with NASA including providing thermal management solutions used in the Mars Rover and Mercury Messenger.
KULR has developed a number of products to increase the performance of aerospace and defense technology and are continuing to research new and innovative thermal management and energy solutions.
Key KULR Product: (TRS) Thermal Runaway Shield
Thermal runaway shield acts as a heat sink during normal lithium-ion battery pack operation but also prevents thermal runaway propagation, which is a serious concern for aerospace and defense customers and electric vehicle manufacturers.
A vaporizing thermal capacitor that provides passive prevention of thermal runaway propagation (TRP) in lithium-ion battery packs.
Thermal runaway can occur spontaneously in a Li-ion cell due to a short.
This can trigger an explosive release of electric energy that ruptures the end cap resulting in a flare and combustion of cell materials.
Released heat drives the triggered cell temperatures to > 500°C, causing a dramatic increase in neighboring cell temperatures. Temperatures above the critical 130°C greatly increase the chance for a short in adjacent cells and result in TRP. This product keeps neighboring cell temperatures from rising above 100°C (well below the 130°C threshold) and prevents TRP.
Effective passive thermal management solutions for battery packs ranging from 10 to 4,000 cells are in demand.
This is especially the case with high-performance applications that draw more power from the battery pack, which can be the case with E-Mobility applications.
The company's US-designed, NASA-tested design is a very light-weight, durable heat sink that keeps lithium ion batteries cooler and safer.
A perfect fit for an automotive industry (electric vehicles) that demands safe and reliable, light-weight battery management solutions.
Read More About KULR On Their Company Website.
As I mentioned previously, KULR has several potential catalysts that could spark vertical movement near term. Here's what to take into account.
Analyst Theodore R. O’Neill of Litchfield Hills Research reiterated a buy rating and gave KULR a $7.00 price target back in November of 2022.
Here are some key highlights from his updated report:
One-cent miss to EPS but record revenue. KULR reported 3Q22 revenue and an EPS loss of $1.4MM and $0.05, respectively. Consensus 3Q22 revenue and EPS loss expectations were $0.9M and $0.04, respectively. The $0.01 EPS variance was due to lower margins and higher non-operating expenses, partially offset by lower operating expenses and higher sales.
Batting well above its weight. The company reported it has over 300 customers in the current quarter, with some of the world’s largest industrial and commercial companies such as Lockheed Martin (LMT-NR), Ball Aerospace, SAFT Group, General Motors (GM-NR), Cirba Solutions, Redwood Materials, Leidos Holdings (LDOS-NR), Meta Platforms (META-NR), Viridi Parente and BOSCH. KULR products protect and solve complex, real-world issues of heat, vibration, and safety.
Well capitalized. The company ended the quarter with $16.2MM of cash.
We are updating our estimates to include the results in the quarter, which increases our 2022 revenue to $3.4MM from $2.7MM. The 2022 EPS loss is unchanged at $0.19. For 2023, our revenue and EPS estimates are unchanged.
Although the shares trade above peer averages, it has held a premium for a considerable time and based on discounted future earnings, we feel the shares are undervalued. Read the full report here
KULR Reports Preliminary Fourth Quarter 2022 Results, Anticipates 137% Revenue Growth
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 13, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced its unaudited preliminary fi-nan-cial results for the fourth quarter ending December 31st, 2022.
Q4’22 Revenue and Operational Highlights:
Revenue for the three months ended December 31, 2022, is estimated to be $1.813Mn, an increase of approximately 137%, compared to $766k in the same quarterly period of the prior year.
“We are very pleased with our revenue ramp and order flow moving into 2023,” said KULR CEO Michael Mo." The platform, which we have built and continue to expand, positions KULR as a preferred solutions provider of lithium-ion battery safety and thermal management technologies. We look forward to continued growth as we leverage the tailwind of a robust battery supply chain and positive regulatory support.” Read the full article here.
KULR Technology Group Announces Issuance of U.S. Patent Covering Li-Ion Battery Storage and Transportation Solution (SafeCase)
Issuance of United States Patent 11502352 Further Bolsters Company’s Intellectual Property Portfolio
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 07, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded a patent on the technology behind its SafeCase products – a U.S. Department of Transportation (“DoT”) permitted lithium-ion battery cell and pack storage and transportation system. The SafeCase products are designed to mitigate thermal runaway propagation and its catastrophic effects for lithium-ion battery packs of up to 2.5 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per case by utilizing KULR’s patented Thermal Runaway Shield (“TRS”) technology.
In 2022, KULR gained immediate and open access to commercial partners and customers by securing United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) (“UPS”) shipping certification, which allows for shipment of batteries utilizing the KULR SafeCase products through UPS’ vast shipping network.
This is the fourth patent issued to KULR based on its TRS design architecture. As a result of its TRS solution, the Company more recently secured a trio of DoT granted special permits enabling it to strategically pursue regulatory markets ranging from shipping prototype batteries to end of life battery management, as well as those used by NASA to transport and store batteries aboard the International Space Station.
“We bring decades of experience solving today's problems within thermal management,” stated Dr. Will Walker, Chief Technology Officer of KULR Technology Group, Inc. “Previously, the Consumer Product Safety Commission reported KULR’s design solutions could stop fires and explosions in lithium-ion battery packs, and provided additional insights on the future of safe battery technology. We continue to work with government agencies, regulators, and commercial customers across the world incorporating our holistic methodology for designing safe battery systems.”
The lithium-ion battery market size is expected to grow at a CAGR of 13.1% from USD 44.5Bn in 2022 to USD 135.1Bn by 2031. Read the full article here.
KULR Technology Group Partners With Theory Racing to Develop Next-Generation E-Bike Batteries
Company Takes Technological Safety Advancements Derived from NASA-Proven Thermal Solutions to Mountain and City Commuter E-Bikes
SAN DIEGO, Dec. 29, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced a partnership with Theory Racing (“Theory”), a leading World Cup Enduro racing team.
The partnership with Theory comes on the heels of the Company announcing that it will introduce its all-new modular energy storage platform, KULR ONE, at CES 2023 this January 5-8. KULR ONE is a family of next-generation battery packs bringing a combination of safety, performance, intelligence, modularity and reliability to the world's most demanding applications.
“Collaborating with a leader in the mountain bike racing space, like Theory Racing, is a natural progression in KULR’s vision to support the global electrification movement,” said KULR’s CEO and Co-Founder, Michael Mo. “Working alongside Director Nic Bean and the Theory Racing team is a terrific opportunity for us to expand into high volume consumer applications as we evolve our NASA-proven battery safety technology to better service the e-bike industry.”
KULR will serve as Theory’s primary sponsor at the World Cup Enduro Tour, a global competition to showcase the future of top mountain bike talents. The Theory Global Enduro Program is a World Cup Enduro team that features top riders such as Julie Duvert and Carter Krasney who have proven to be competitive at the top of the sport internationally. KULR’s support will help push the Theory team to new heights, while electrifying their traveling infrastructure. Read the full article here.
KULR Secures First Customer for KULR VIBE Underscoring Solution's Commercial Application in the Aviation Sector
KULR Provides Client’s Global Fleet of Helicopters with Mission-Critical Maintenance Support
SAN DIEGO, Dec. 21, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced that it has entered into a six-figure annual subscription agreement with an industry leading, American-based commercial helicopter operator (the “Client”) to provide global track and balance support for its fleet of helicopters via KULR VIBE, which provides a proprietary AI-driven vibration reduction solution. By incorporating KULR VIBE into their maintenance program, the Client can safely service and maintain operations of its diverse helicopter fleet which service customers in the oil and gas and air-medical sectors.
The Client is one of the world's largest civilian helicopter operators with over 250 diverse aircraft spanning 5 continents.
“KULR has a long history of developing products that offer its customers proven solutions built to safely withstand the most severe conditions, from space to extreme heat, while also mitigating the potentially devastating effects of excessive vibration on machinery,” said KULR’s President & COO, Keith Cochran. “Through our KULR VIBE solution we enable this Client to provide high-quality support to their customers and ensure they can safely carry out some of the most challenging assignments in aviation. Read the full article here.
KULR CHART

https://preview.redd.it/wpoqpdye7dla1.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=e805265d7a0ee848453c0281d61ae74c666c5838
This should get everyone started with their due diligence on KULR. I will have an updated report soon.
If you love the stock as much as I do help spread the word!
Disclaimer
submitted by SituationLive4406 to wallstreet [link] [comments]


2023.03.02 18:54 SituationLive4406 Next Gen Battery Tech $KULR, Over 300 Current Clients Including the DoD, Lockheed Martin and NASA

If you love the stock as much as I do help spread the word!
One of my favorite "HIGH GROWETH" stocks with continuing adoption of their technology and a huge addressable market in Battery technology. Over 300 current clients and a provider to or in partnership with the DoD, Lockheed Martin and NASA to name a few.
Recent analyst coverage calling for 400% upside from yesterday's close. More on this below.
KULR Technology Group Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) develops, manufactures, and licenses carbon fiber thermal management technologies for batteries and electronic systems. KULR enables leading aerospace, electronics, energy storage, 5G infrastructure, and electric vehicle manufacturers to make their products cooler, lighter and much safer.
KULR looks like a great value here, and I consider it a potential pre-catalyst opportunity. I say that because KULR has several industries, including EV manufacturers that will most likely adopt their tech soon.
This Weeks News from KULR is Extremely Significant
We had to do some digging to find some of this information for you**. So first, let's look at the press release from Tuesday.**
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 28, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced it secured a $2.68 million follow-on contract as the exclusive supplier of its patented and proprietary fail-safe Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) battery solutions for a stationary and mobile lithium-ion battery power system manufacturer (the “Customer”). After extensive design and testing efforts, this order represents KULR's single largest PPR deployment order in a stationary or mobile energy product to date. This is a follow-on order as the Customer prepares to scale towards the full automation of its battery assembly operations, whilst KULR expands its automated PPR component manufacturing in North America.
The Customer relied on KULR’s PPR solution in designing, testing, and meeting the stringent UL 9540 (Field-Listed with Energy Storage Systems) and UL 9540A (Cell/Module/Pack-Tested) certification of its stationary lithium-ion battery pack systems, which in turn led to rigorous testing and passing of the safety threshold established by the Canadian Standards Association Group (“CSA”), an independent testing body that is a leader in standards development, testing, inspection and certification.
The Customer’s lithium-ion battery systems have been authorized as safe to use in occupied buildings. The systems can be configured to provide from 50 KWh (“Kilowatt-hours”) to 5 MWh (“Megawatt-hours”) of distributed energy storage at the point-of-use where applications range from medical and research complexes, residential and commercial buildings, to remote data centers and manufacturing facilities. The systems also provide fully renewable mobile energy solutions for construction equipment, waste disposal, last-mile delivery, as well as other portable industrial markets.
KULR’s PPR design solutions enable energy storage systems a longer life cycle and allow completely self-contained safe battery solutions to meet the demands of the heavy construction and manufacturing sector while opening new opportunities for KULR with industrial customers seeking to buy and store electricity during less-expensive off-peak times – offsetting the need for gas-powered generators as backup power. The state of California will require portable gas-powered generators to be zero-emissions by 2028, potentially another boon for KULR.
"We are pleased to be the exclusive supplier of fail-safe stationary storage battery solutions for this Customer’s significant buildout,” said KULR CEO Michael Mo. “The reality is that there will be many more projects like this one coming to market soon, especially with the Inflation Reduction Act amplifying demand for safe and clean stationary energy storage. We know solutions that promote battery safety are of great importance for utility and industrial energy storage providers and it’s our belief that KULR offers one of the safest and most cost-effective energy storage technologies in the marketplace.”
The stationary battery storage market is set to surpass USD $870 billion by 2032, according to a research report by Global Market Insights Inc. published in late 2022.
This latest Customer order follows the recent announcement that KULR commenced Phase 2 development of its PPR battery systems for Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Advanced Energy Systems. As KULR continues to collaborate with entities such as the United States Department of Defense ("DoD"), NASA, and major defense manufacturers, KULR is steadily leveraging its thermal design expertise beyond government contracts, rechanneling its PPR applications from military purposes to commercial enterprise, for uses such as energy storage systems, e-mobility, and cloud computing. FULL PRESS RELEASE
Ok so, the client is a company called Viridi Parente located in Buffalo, NY they are the manufacturer of the only distributed energy storage system that is safe powerful, affordable, and scalable enough to make the zero-carbon energy revolution a reality.
Like KULR they are fast growing energy technology company.
From Viridi's website: "Viridi designs and builds fail-safe battery systems that are redefining energy storage and powering the transition to renewable energy, providing on-demand, affordable power for use in industrial, medical, commercial, municipal, and residential building applications."
Viridi's Applications are Driving Industries, Institutions, Cties and the Country. (Not just cars.)
Virtually every automobile OEM is competing for 3% of the GDP!
Given the amount of media attention surrounding EVs, or electric vehicles, it might be surprising to learn that virtually every automobile manufacturer is competing for only 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — the measure used to determine the size and health of our economy. This means that if every EV competitor succeeds, it still leaves 97% of the economy behind. That’s hardly a revolution, and not even close to the transformation we need in order to achieve a resilient future.
Viridi’s mission is to power the other 97% of the GDP, providing zero-carbon energy for governments, infrastructure systems across the country, medical and academic institutions, industries of every kind, and commercial and residential built environments. As the only manufacturer of fail-safe lithium-ion battery technology that’s been approved for use in occupied spaces, Viridi is in a unique position to accomplish this.
Viridi’s products are fail-safe. Viridi’s products incorporate thermal-management technology developed by KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR), a company that has its origins in cooling solutions developed for NASA space missions. Fail-Safe technology means Viridi goes wherever energy is needed. Its battery system has been rigorously tested in extreme conditions and passed the safety threshold established by CSA, a leading independent testing body.
Viridi lithium-ion battery systems are ready now to power the 97%.
Ok, now let's take another look at that $2.68M exclusive supplier contract KULR just signed with Viridi.
"KULR secures $2.68 million follow-on contract as the exclusive supplier of its patented and proprietary fail-safe Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) battery solutions for a stationary and mobile lithium-ion battery power system manufacturer."
So, we could conclude that there will be many, many more orders of this magnitude coming from Viridi.
Here is the Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) system and the web page that lead us to this conclusion.
Inside the first fail-safe lithium-ion battery system
Now is the time to focus on KULR again as this high growth company has a $7.00 price target from Litchfield Hills Research (upside potential over 400% from yesterday's close) and several key highlights and potential catalysts.
The Virdi contract is not the only major announcement from KULR this year. KULR has had several big company announcements in 2023.
More on those in second...
KULR Technology Group's Space-proven Solutions For Electronics And Lithium-ion Batteries
KULR’s disruptive thermal management technologies strive to fulfill an addressable $24Bn thermal management systems market.
KULR’s integrated design approach offers comprehensive solutions in thermal interface materials, lightweight heat exchangers, and protection against lithium-ion battery thermal runaway propagation.
Their high-performance solutions can be designed to fit almost any power or electronic configuration, including extremely demanding spaces or for applications where size and weight restrictions are a concern.
Making The World Of Electronics Cooler, Lighter, And Safer
Since 2016, the company has witnessed dramatic changes in the world of electronics with an automotive industry transitioning into the electrification of vehicles and the advent of 5G communications technologies that will accelerate cloud computing growth.
Such applications have progressively become more powerful and often require improved forms of thermal management or electronics and battery cooling technologies.
The company's plan of execution starts with providing their customers with the best battery testing methodologies as well as cost-effective cooling technologies that outperform traditional solutions, delivering a reliable, safer, and more energy-efficient product to the end-user.
Fully Integrated Thermal Solutions For Aerospace And Defense Applications
Thermal management for aerospace and defense applications are mission critical. Technology in this sector is developing at increasing rates, with devices being placed into aircrafts, satellites, and missiles becoming ever smaller, and all the more powerful.
KULR Technology can help the implementation of these technologies through proven energy and thermal management solutions. Bank of America predicts the space industry will be worth nearly $3Tn in 30 years.
In particular, space electronics face harsh thermal environments in vacuum. They are exposed to severe shock, vibration, and extreme temperature swings throughout the duration of flight operation. The weight and volume of cooling solutions is the most important constraint in space applications. KULR’s solution offers superior mass and weight advantages with its carbon fiber architecture for a variety of space applications.
In fact, KULR’s technology has its beginnings in the space industry having won over 30 contracts with NASA including providing thermal management solutions used in the Mars Rover and Mercury Messenger.
KULR has developed a number of products to increase the performance of aerospace and defense technology and are continuing to research new and innovative thermal management and energy solutions.
Key KULR Product: (TRS) Thermal Runaway Shield
Thermal runaway shield acts as a heat sink during normal lithium-ion battery pack operation but also prevents thermal runaway propagation, which is a serious concern for aerospace and defense customers and electric vehicle manufacturers.
A vaporizing thermal capacitor that provides passive prevention of thermal runaway propagation (TRP) in lithium-ion battery packs.
Thermal runaway can occur spontaneously in a Li-ion cell due to a short.
This can trigger an explosive release of electric energy that ruptures the end cap resulting in a flare and combustion of cell materials.
Released heat drives the triggered cell temperatures to > 500°C, causing a dramatic increase in neighboring cell temperatures. Temperatures above the critical 130°C greatly increase the chance for a short in adjacent cells and result in TRP. This product keeps neighboring cell temperatures from rising above 100°C (well below the 130°C threshold) and prevents TRP.
Effective passive thermal management solutions for battery packs ranging from 10 to 4,000 cells are in demand.
This is especially the case with high-performance applications that draw more power from the battery pack, which can be the case with E-Mobility applications.
The company's US-designed, NASA-tested design is a very light-weight, durable heat sink that keeps lithium ion batteries cooler and safer.
A perfect fit for an automotive industry (electric vehicles) that demands safe and reliable, light-weight battery management solutions.
Read More About KULR On Their Company Website.
As I mentioned previously, KULR has several potential catalysts that could spark vertical movement near term. Here's what to take into account.
Analyst Theodore R. O’Neill of Litchfield Hills Research reiterated a buy rating and gave KULR a $7.00 price target back in November of 2022.
Here are some key highlights from his updated report:
One-cent miss to EPS but record revenue. KULR reported 3Q22 revenue and an EPS loss of $1.4MM and $0.05, respectively. Consensus 3Q22 revenue and EPS loss expectations were $0.9M and $0.04, respectively. The $0.01 EPS variance was due to lower margins and higher non-operating expenses, partially offset by lower operating expenses and higher sales.
Batting well above its weight. The company reported it has over 300 customers in the current quarter, with some of the world’s largest industrial and commercial companies such as Lockheed Martin (LMT-NR), Ball Aerospace, SAFT Group, General Motors (GM-NR), Cirba Solutions, Redwood Materials, Leidos Holdings (LDOS-NR), Meta Platforms (META-NR), Viridi Parente and BOSCH. KULR products protect and solve complex, real-world issues of heat, vibration, and safety.
Well capitalized. The company ended the quarter with $16.2MM of cash.
We are updating our estimates to include the results in the quarter, which increases our 2022 revenue to $3.4MM from $2.7MM. The 2022 EPS loss is unchanged at $0.19. For 2023, our revenue and EPS estimates are unchanged.
Although the shares trade above peer averages, it has held a premium for a considerable time and based on discounted future earnings, we feel the shares are undervalued. Read the full report here
KULR Reports Preliminary Fourth Quarter 2022 Results, Anticipates 137% Revenue Growth
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 13, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced its unaudited preliminary fi-nan-cial results for the fourth quarter ending December 31st, 2022.
Q4’22 Revenue and Operational Highlights:
Revenue for the three months ended December 31, 2022, is estimated to be $1.813Mn, an increase of approximately 137%, compared to $766k in the same quarterly period of the prior year.
“We are very pleased with our revenue ramp and order flow moving into 2023,” said KULR CEO Michael Mo." The platform, which we have built and continue to expand, positions KULR as a preferred solutions provider of lithium-ion battery safety and thermal management technologies. We look forward to continued growth as we leverage the tailwind of a robust battery supply chain and positive regulatory support.” Read the full article here.
KULR Technology Group Announces Issuance of U.S. Patent Covering Li-Ion Battery Storage and Transportation Solution (SafeCase)
Issuance of United States Patent 11502352 Further Bolsters Company’s Intellectual Property Portfolio
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 07, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded a patent on the technology behind its SafeCase products – a U.S. Department of Transportation (“DoT”) permitted lithium-ion battery cell and pack storage and transportation system. The SafeCase products are designed to mitigate thermal runaway propagation and its catastrophic effects for lithium-ion battery packs of up to 2.5 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per case by utilizing KULR’s patented Thermal Runaway Shield (“TRS”) technology.
In 2022, KULR gained immediate and open access to commercial partners and customers by securing United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) (“UPS”) shipping certification, which allows for shipment of batteries utilizing the KULR SafeCase products through UPS’ vast shipping network.
This is the fourth patent issued to KULR based on its TRS design architecture. As a result of its TRS solution, the Company more recently secured a trio of DoT granted special permits enabling it to strategically pursue regulatory markets ranging from shipping prototype batteries to end of life battery management, as well as those used by NASA to transport and store batteries aboard the International Space Station.
“We bring decades of experience solving today's problems within thermal management,” stated Dr. Will Walker, Chief Technology Officer of KULR Technology Group, Inc. “Previously, the Consumer Product Safety Commission reported KULR’s design solutions could stop fires and explosions in lithium-ion battery packs, and provided additional insights on the future of safe battery technology. We continue to work with government agencies, regulators, and commercial customers across the world incorporating our holistic methodology for designing safe battery systems.”
The lithium-ion battery market size is expected to grow at a CAGR of 13.1% from USD 44.5Bn in 2022 to USD 135.1Bn by 2031. Read the full article here.
KULR Technology Group Partners With Theory Racing to Develop Next-Generation E-Bike Batteries
Company Takes Technological Safety Advancements Derived from NASA-Proven Thermal Solutions to Mountain and City Commuter E-Bikes
SAN DIEGO, Dec. 29, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced a partnership with Theory Racing (“Theory”), a leading World Cup Enduro racing team.
The partnership with Theory comes on the heels of the Company announcing that it will introduce its all-new modular energy storage platform, KULR ONE, at CES 2023 this January 5-8. KULR ONE is a family of next-generation battery packs bringing a combination of safety, performance, intelligence, modularity and reliability to the world's most demanding applications.
“Collaborating with a leader in the mountain bike racing space, like Theory Racing, is a natural progression in KULR’s vision to support the global electrification movement,” said KULR’s CEO and Co-Founder, Michael Mo. “Working alongside Director Nic Bean and the Theory Racing team is a terrific opportunity for us to expand into high volume consumer applications as we evolve our NASA-proven battery safety technology to better service the e-bike industry.”
KULR will serve as Theory’s primary sponsor at the World Cup Enduro Tour, a global competition to showcase the future of top mountain bike talents. The Theory Global Enduro Program is a World Cup Enduro team that features top riders such as Julie Duvert and Carter Krasney who have proven to be competitive at the top of the sport internationally. KULR’s support will help push the Theory team to new heights, while electrifying their traveling infrastructure. Read the full article here.
KULR Secures First Customer for KULR VIBE Underscoring Solution's Commercial Application in the Aviation Sector
KULR Provides Client’s Global Fleet of Helicopters with Mission-Critical Maintenance Support
SAN DIEGO, Dec. 21, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced that it has entered into a six-figure annual subscription agreement with an industry leading, American-based commercial helicopter operator (the “Client”) to provide global track and balance support for its fleet of helicopters via KULR VIBE, which provides a proprietary AI-driven vibration reduction solution. By incorporating KULR VIBE into their maintenance program, the Client can safely service and maintain operations of its diverse helicopter fleet which service customers in the oil and gas and air-medical sectors.
The Client is one of the world's largest civilian helicopter operators with over 250 diverse aircraft spanning 5 continents.
“KULR has a long history of developing products that offer its customers proven solutions built to safely withstand the most severe conditions, from space to extreme heat, while also mitigating the potentially devastating effects of excessive vibration on machinery,” said KULR’s President & COO, Keith Cochran. “Through our KULR VIBE solution we enable this Client to provide high-quality support to their customers and ensure they can safely carry out some of the most challenging assignments in aviation. Read the full article here.

This should get everyone started with their due diligence on KULR. I will have an updated report soon.
If you love the stock as much as I do help spread the word!

Disclaimer
submitted by SituationLive4406 to investing_discussion [link] [comments]


2023.03.02 18:42 SituationLive4406 Next Gen Battery Tech $KULR, Over 300 Current Clients Including the DoD, Lockheed Martin and NASA

If you love the stock as much as I do help spread the word!
One of my favorite "HIGH GROWETH" stocks with continuing adoption of their technology and a huge addressable market in Battery technology. Over 300 current clients and a provider to or in partnership with the DoD, Lockheed Martin and NASA to name a few.
Recent analyst coverage calling for 400% upside from yesterday's close. More on this below.
KULR Technology Group Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) develops, manufactures, and licenses carbon fiber thermal management technologies for batteries and electronic systems. KULR enables leading aerospace, electronics, energy storage, 5G infrastructure, and electric vehicle manufacturers to make their products cooler, lighter and much safer.
KULR looks like a great value here, and I consider it a potential pre-catalyst opportunity. I say that because KULR has several industries, including EV manufacturers that will most likely adopt their tech soon.
This Weeks News from KULR is Extremely Significant
We had to do some digging to find some of this information for you**. So first, let's look at the press release from Tuesday.**
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 28, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced it secured a $2.68 million follow-on contract as the exclusive supplier of its patented and proprietary fail-safe Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) battery solutions for a stationary and mobile lithium-ion battery power system manufacturer (the “Customer”). After extensive design and testing efforts, this order represents KULR's single largest PPR deployment order in a stationary or mobile energy product to date. This is a follow-on order as the Customer prepares to scale towards the full automation of its battery assembly operations, whilst KULR expands its automated PPR component manufacturing in North America.
The Customer relied on KULR’s PPR solution in designing, testing, and meeting the stringent UL 9540 (Field-Listed with Energy Storage Systems) and UL 9540A (Cell/Module/Pack-Tested) certification of its stationary lithium-ion battery pack systems, which in turn led to rigorous testing and passing of the safety threshold established by the Canadian Standards Association Group (“CSA”), an independent testing body that is a leader in standards development, testing, inspection and certification.
The Customer’s lithium-ion battery systems have been authorized as safe to use in occupied buildings. The systems can be configured to provide from 50 KWh (“Kilowatt-hours”) to 5 MWh (“Megawatt-hours”) of distributed energy storage at the point-of-use where applications range from medical and research complexes, residential and commercial buildings, to remote data centers and manufacturing facilities. The systems also provide fully renewable mobile energy solutions for construction equipment, waste disposal, last-mile delivery, as well as other portable industrial markets.
KULR’s PPR design solutions enable energy storage systems a longer life cycle and allow completely self-contained safe battery solutions to meet the demands of the heavy construction and manufacturing sector while opening new opportunities for KULR with industrial customers seeking to buy and store electricity during less-expensive off-peak times – offsetting the need for gas-powered generators as backup power. The state of California will require portable gas-powered generators to be zero-emissions by 2028, potentially another boon for KULR.
"We are pleased to be the exclusive supplier of fail-safe stationary storage battery solutions for this Customer’s significant buildout,” said KULR CEO Michael Mo. “The reality is that there will be many more projects like this one coming to market soon, especially with the Inflation Reduction Act amplifying demand for safe and clean stationary energy storage. We know solutions that promote battery safety are of great importance for utility and industrial energy storage providers and it’s our belief that KULR offers one of the safest and most cost-effective energy storage technologies in the marketplace.”
The stationary battery storage market is set to surpass USD $870 billion by 2032, according to a research report by Global Market Insights Inc. published in late 2022.
This latest Customer order follows the recent announcement that KULR commenced Phase 2 development of its PPR battery systems for Lockheed Martin Corporation’s Advanced Energy Systems. As KULR continues to collaborate with entities such as the United States Department of Defense ("DoD"), NASA, and major defense manufacturers, KULR is steadily leveraging its thermal design expertise beyond government contracts, rechanneling its PPR applications from military purposes to commercial enterprise, for uses such as energy storage systems, e-mobility, and cloud computing. FULL PRESS RELEASE
Ok so, the client is a company called Viridi Parente located in Buffalo, NY they are the manufacturer of the only distributed energy storage system that is safe powerful, affordable, and scalable enough to make the zero-carbon energy revolution a reality.
Like KULR they are fast growing energy technology company.
From Viridi's website: "Viridi designs and builds fail-safe battery systems that are redefining energy storage and powering the transition to renewable energy, providing on-demand, affordable power for use in industrial, medical, commercial, municipal, and residential building applications."
Viridi's Applications are Driving Industries, Institutions, Cties and the Country. (Not just cars.)
Virtually every automobile OEM is competing for 3% of the GDP!
Given the amount of media attention surrounding EVs, or electric vehicles, it might be surprising to learn that virtually every automobile manufacturer is competing for only 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — the measure used to determine the size and health of our economy. This means that if every EV competitor succeeds, it still leaves 97% of the economy behind. That’s hardly a revolution, and not even close to the transformation we need in order to achieve a resilient future.
Viridi’s mission is to power the other 97% of the GDP, providing zero-carbon energy for governments, infrastructure systems across the country, medical and academic institutions, industries of every kind, and commercial and residential built environments. As the only manufacturer of fail-safe lithium-ion battery technology that’s been approved for use in occupied spaces, Viridi is in a unique position to accomplish this.
Viridi’s products are fail-safe. Viridi’s products incorporate thermal-management technology developed by KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR), a company that has its origins in cooling solutions developed for NASA space missions. Fail-Safe technology means Viridi goes wherever energy is needed. Its battery system has been rigorously tested in extreme conditions and passed the safety threshold established by CSA, a leading independent testing body.
Viridi lithium-ion battery systems are ready now to power the 97%.
Ok, now let's take another look at that $2.68M exclusive supplier contract KULR just signed with Viridi.
"KULR secures $2.68 million follow-on contract as the exclusive supplier of its patented and proprietary fail-safe Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) battery solutions for a stationary and mobile lithium-ion battery power system manufacturer."
So, we could conclude that there will be many, many more orders of this magnitude coming from Viridi.
Here is the Passive Propagation Resistant (“PPR”) system and the web page that lead us to this conclusion.
Inside the first fail-safe lithium-ion battery system
Now is the time to focus on KULR again as this high growth company has a $7.00 price target from Litchfield Hills Research (upside potential over 400% from yesterday's close) and several key highlights and potential catalysts.
The Virdi contract is not the only major announcement from KULR this year. KULR has had several big company announcements in 2023.
More on those in second...
KULR Technology Group's Space-proven Solutions For Electronics And Lithium-ion Batteries
KULR’s disruptive thermal management technologies strive to fulfill an addressable $24Bn thermal management systems market.
KULR’s integrated design approach offers comprehensive solutions in thermal interface materials, lightweight heat exchangers, and protection against lithium-ion battery thermal runaway propagation.
Their high-performance solutions can be designed to fit almost any power or electronic configuration, including extremely demanding spaces or for applications where size and weight restrictions are a concern.
Making The World Of Electronics Cooler, Lighter, And Safer
Since 2016, the company has witnessed dramatic changes in the world of electronics with an automotive industry transitioning into the electrification of vehicles and the advent of 5G communications technologies that will accelerate cloud computing growth.
Such applications have progressively become more powerful and often require improved forms of thermal management or electronics and battery cooling technologies.
The company's plan of execution starts with providing their customers with the best battery testing methodologies as well as cost-effective cooling technologies that outperform traditional solutions, delivering a reliable, safer, and more energy-efficient product to the end-user.
Fully Integrated Thermal Solutions For Aerospace And Defense Applications
Thermal management for aerospace and defense applications are mission critical. Technology in this sector is developing at increasing rates, with devices being placed into aircrafts, satellites, and missiles becoming ever smaller, and all the more powerful.
KULR Technology can help the implementation of these technologies through proven energy and thermal management solutions. Bank of America predicts the space industry will be worth nearly $3Tn in 30 years.
In particular, space electronics face harsh thermal environments in vacuum. They are exposed to severe shock, vibration, and extreme temperature swings throughout the duration of flight operation. The weight and volume of cooling solutions is the most important constraint in space applications. KULR’s solution offers superior mass and weight advantages with its carbon fiber architecture for a variety of space applications.
In fact, KULR’s technology has its beginnings in the space industry having won over 30 contracts with NASA including providing thermal management solutions used in the Mars Rover and Mercury Messenger.
KULR has developed a number of products to increase the performance of aerospace and defense technology and are continuing to research new and innovative thermal management and energy solutions.
Key KULR Product: (TRS) Thermal Runaway Shield
Thermal runaway shield acts as a heat sink during normal lithium-ion battery pack operation but also prevents thermal runaway propagation, which is a serious concern for aerospace and defense customers and electric vehicle manufacturers.
A vaporizing thermal capacitor that provides passive prevention of thermal runaway propagation (TRP) in lithium-ion battery packs.
Thermal runaway can occur spontaneously in a Li-ion cell due to a short.
This can trigger an explosive release of electric energy that ruptures the end cap resulting in a flare and combustion of cell materials.
Released heat drives the triggered cell temperatures to > 500°C, causing a dramatic increase in neighboring cell temperatures. Temperatures above the critical 130°C greatly increase the chance for a short in adjacent cells and result in TRP. This product keeps neighboring cell temperatures from rising above 100°C (well below the 130°C threshold) and prevents TRP.
Effective passive thermal management solutions for battery packs ranging from 10 to 4,000 cells are in demand.
This is especially the case with high-performance applications that draw more power from the battery pack, which can be the case with E-Mobility applications.
The company's US-designed, NASA-tested design is a very light-weight, durable heat sink that keeps lithium ion batteries cooler and safer.
A perfect fit for an automotive industry (electric vehicles) that demands safe and reliable, light-weight battery management solutions.
Read More About KULR On Their Company Website.
As I mentioned previously, KULR has several potential catalysts that could spark vertical movement near term. Here's what to take into account.
Analyst Theodore R. O’Neill of Litchfield Hills Research reiterated a buy rating and gave KULR a $7.00 price target back in November of 2022.
Here are some key highlights from his updated report:
One-cent miss to EPS but record revenue. KULR reported 3Q22 revenue and an EPS loss of $1.4MM and $0.05, respectively. Consensus 3Q22 revenue and EPS loss expectations were $0.9M and $0.04, respectively. The $0.01 EPS variance was due to lower margins and higher non-operating expenses, partially offset by lower operating expenses and higher sales.
Batting well above its weight. The company reported it has over 300 customers in the current quarter, with some of the world’s largest industrial and commercial companies such as Lockheed Martin (LMT-NR), Ball Aerospace, SAFT Group, General Motors (GM-NR), Cirba Solutions, Redwood Materials, Leidos Holdings (LDOS-NR), Meta Platforms (META-NR), Viridi Parente and BOSCH. KULR products protect and solve complex, real-world issues of heat, vibration, and safety.
Well capitalized. The company ended the quarter with $16.2MM of cash.
We are updating our estimates to include the results in the quarter, which increases our 2022 revenue to $3.4MM from $2.7MM. The 2022 EPS loss is unchanged at $0.19. For 2023, our revenue and EPS estimates are unchanged.
Although the shares trade above peer averages, it has held a premium for a considerable time and based on discounted future earnings, we feel the shares are undervalued. Read the full report here
KULR Reports Preliminary Fourth Quarter 2022 Results, Anticipates 137% Revenue Growth
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 13, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced its unaudited preliminary fi-nan-cial results for the fourth quarter ending December 31st, 2022.
Q4’22 Revenue and Operational Highlights:
Revenue for the three months ended December 31, 2022, is estimated to be $1.813Mn, an increase of approximately 137%, compared to $766k in the same quarterly period of the prior year.
“We are very pleased with our revenue ramp and order flow moving into 2023,” said KULR CEO Michael Mo." The platform, which we have built and continue to expand, positions KULR as a preferred solutions provider of lithium-ion battery safety and thermal management technologies. We look forward to continued growth as we leverage the tailwind of a robust battery supply chain and positive regulatory support.” Read the full article here.
KULR Technology Group Announces Issuance of U.S. Patent Covering Li-Ion Battery Storage and Transportation Solution (SafeCase)
Issuance of United States Patent 11502352 Further Bolsters Company’s Intellectual Property Portfolio
SAN DIEGO, Feb. 07, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded a patent on the technology behind its SafeCase products – a U.S. Department of Transportation (“DoT”) permitted lithium-ion battery cell and pack storage and transportation system. The SafeCase products are designed to mitigate thermal runaway propagation and its catastrophic effects for lithium-ion battery packs of up to 2.5 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per case by utilizing KULR’s patented Thermal Runaway Shield (“TRS”) technology.
In 2022, KULR gained immediate and open access to commercial partners and customers by securing United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) (“UPS”) shipping certification, which allows for shipment of batteries utilizing the KULR SafeCase products through UPS’ vast shipping network.
This is the fourth patent issued to KULR based on its TRS design architecture. As a result of its TRS solution, the Company more recently secured a trio of DoT granted special permits enabling it to strategically pursue regulatory markets ranging from shipping prototype batteries to end of life battery management, as well as those used by NASA to transport and store batteries aboard the International Space Station.
“We bring decades of experience solving today's problems within thermal management,” stated Dr. Will Walker, Chief Technology Officer of KULR Technology Group, Inc. “Previously, the Consumer Product Safety Commission reported KULR’s design solutions could stop fires and explosions in lithium-ion battery packs, and provided additional insights on the future of safe battery technology. We continue to work with government agencies, regulators, and commercial customers across the world incorporating our holistic methodology for designing safe battery systems.”
The lithium-ion battery market size is expected to grow at a CAGR of 13.1% from USD 44.5Bn in 2022 to USD 135.1Bn by 2031. Read the full article here.
KULR Technology Group Partners With Theory Racing to Develop Next-Generation E-Bike Batteries
Company Takes Technological Safety Advancements Derived from NASA-Proven Thermal Solutions to Mountain and City Commuter E-Bikes
SAN DIEGO, Dec. 29, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced a partnership with Theory Racing (“Theory”), a leading World Cup Enduro racing team.
The partnership with Theory comes on the heels of the Company announcing that it will introduce its all-new modular energy storage platform, KULR ONE, at CES 2023 this January 5-8. KULR ONE is a family of next-generation battery packs bringing a combination of safety, performance, intelligence, modularity and reliability to the world's most demanding applications.
“Collaborating with a leader in the mountain bike racing space, like Theory Racing, is a natural progression in KULR’s vision to support the global electrification movement,” said KULR’s CEO and Co-Founder, Michael Mo. “Working alongside Director Nic Bean and the Theory Racing team is a terrific opportunity for us to expand into high volume consumer applications as we evolve our NASA-proven battery safety technology to better service the e-bike industry.”
KULR will serve as Theory’s primary sponsor at the World Cup Enduro Tour, a global competition to showcase the future of top mountain bike talents. The Theory Global Enduro Program is a World Cup Enduro team that features top riders such as Julie Duvert and Carter Krasney who have proven to be competitive at the top of the sport internationally. KULR’s support will help push the Theory team to new heights, while electrifying their traveling infrastructure. Read the full article here.
KULR Secures First Customer for KULR VIBE Underscoring Solution's Commercial Application in the Aviation Sector
KULR Provides Client’s Global Fleet of Helicopters with Mission-Critical Maintenance Support
SAN DIEGO, Dec. 21, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- KULR Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE American: KULR) (the "Company" or "KULR"), a leading energy management platform company accelerating the global transition to a sustainable electrification economy, today announced that it has entered into a six-figure annual subscription agreement with an industry leading, American-based commercial helicopter operator (the “Client”) to provide global track and balance support for its fleet of helicopters via KULR VIBE, which provides a proprietary AI-driven vibration reduction solution. By incorporating KULR VIBE into their maintenance program, the Client can safely service and maintain operations of its diverse helicopter fleet which service customers in the oil and gas and air-medical sectors.
The Client is one of the world's largest civilian helicopter operators with over 250 diverse aircraft spanning 5 continents.
“KULR has a long history of developing products that offer its customers proven solutions built to safely withstand the most severe conditions, from space to extreme heat, while also mitigating the potentially devastating effects of excessive vibration on machinery,” said KULR’s President & COO, Keith Cochran. “Through our KULR VIBE solution we enable this Client to provide high-quality support to their customers and ensure they can safely carry out some of the most challenging assignments in aviation. Read the full article here.
KULR CHART

https://preview.redd.it/wemg5fsd4dla1.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=5f8bcde219fe6fd2af034622c45281e424e43580
This should get everyone started with their due diligence on KULR. I will have an updated report soon.
If you love the stock as much as I do help spread the word!

Disclaimer
submitted by SituationLive4406 to wallstreetbets2 [link] [comments]