Posts by restlesscrane152

rowdyraven31 said:If anyone has some hands-on experience with this, I would love to get a comparison between running a company locally versus setting it up in the States (say, in Delaware, for example).

To give you an idea, let's say a US-based company provides services—things like web design, graphic content creation, video game development, or consulting—and then sells those services to clients all over the world.

From what I’ve gathered, if you are the director of the company, maybe about 10% goes toward income tax on whatever salary the firm pays you.
But I suppose I’m not entirely certain about the other differences compared to just having a local business.

P.S. If I'm mistaken, does anyone happen to know where I could find reliable information on this? I’d rather not have to hunt down people living in America to ask them to do some digging for me. xD

Look, you can write whatever nonsense you want on paper or a website. Bottom line? You pay taxes where you actually live. The company pays taxes wherever the boss is a resident—keeping it simple, but that's all you need to know right now.

If you’re planning on setting up a business somewhere else, you’ve gotta move there too. Otherwise, don't even bother wasting your time.

Anthony Wood75 said:People tend to overlook how many small business owners out there pay themselves and their staff nothing more than the legal minimum. I see it all the time with local contractors, restaurant owners, or guys working the docks.
A paycheck might show about $3,500 hitting the bank, but any decent contractor is pulling in at least $200 in cash daily.
Most restaurant owners just pay themselves and their families the bare minimum year-round to keep the books looking a certain way.
The fishermen usually take a commission of maybe 10-12% on the catch, taking the minimum on paper and pocketing the rest in cash.
And don't even get me started on the security guards.
It creates this massive illusion of a gap between public and private sectors, when in reality, the situation is often the exact opposite.
On top of that, plenty of people work under the table simply because they have collections hanging over them and can't afford to be officially on the payroll.

Look, an executive can't legally pay themselves less than the minimum required director contributions set by U.S. law. And as for the second thing (paying family members minimum wage)? That’s basically standard practice all over the Western world.

Casey Mitchell72 said:👍

Can someone please drop those numbers Gregory Hall66 was asking about?

If this is hitting one specific group way harder than everyone else, how can anyone call it a coincidence? It’s not like society is out there hunting them down like stray dogs or anything, but that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

Is there a law? You bet. Are there institutions actually tasked with enforcing it? They sure are.

Let's be real, they just don't have equal rights.

We're never gonna see eye to eye on this one.

Why are they such liars? What exactly is the UIO trying to cover up?

If we can't even agree on the facts, then there's really nothing left to talk about.

Gregory Hall66 said:Yes, the media lies. It goes without saying that there are people who have been targeted; I am not denying that. The real question, however, is how many are we actually talking about?
Until someone presents hard, cold numbers, this entire conversation is little more than aimless chatter.

Given the sheer volume of coverage regarding the supposed "threats and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals," one would assume such data would be readily available in countless places. My question remains: why is it nowhere to be found?
The solution is quite simple:
Washington, D.C.: Year 2012, 2011, 2010, etc. ——— Attack Count
Rijeka: Year ——— Attack Count
Miami: Year ——— Attack Count
... and so on...

Awesome. Love that skepticism toward the media. But I gotta wonder—do you hold conservative groups to that same standard? Take "In the Name of the Family," for example. Just a bunch of liars, right?

Casey Mitchell72 said:I don't get why people keep dragging Catholics into this whole gay debate. Honestly, the only comparison that actually makes sense is between gay people and straight people.

For those who aren't part of the LGBTQ+ community... I mean, seriously, what would even be considered an actual crisis at that point? Like, if people were being slaughtered by the hundreds, would that just be a "minor hiccup" to you guys?

Look, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any kind of attack on a person, no matter what the reason is, is totally unacceptable. It needs to be condemned, period, and there should be actual legal consequences for it.
Look, the law is supposed to protect everyone equally, period. If it isn't working that way, then activists need to stop venting here and take that energy straight to the courts and the government instead. Focus your fire there.
Activists are trying to spin certain incidents—which honestly have nothing to do with sexuality, just like those attacks on Stjepan Mason had zero to do with anti-fascism—as some big organized terror campaign by the majority against the minority. It’s super rude and honestly so annoying. That's just their go-to tactic. 🙂 That's exactly why I say those activist groups and organizations are doing more harm than good. They aren't actually helping the community they claim to represent—they're just making things worse.

What a wild ride of words...

It’s not some wild exaggeration—it’s just the plain old truth.

Look, the point of the comparison is to show that the attack count against LGBTQ+ people isn't just a bunch of "isolated incidents" like some people here want to claim. If these were truly just "isolated incidents," they'd be happening to everyone equally, not just targeting specific groups. That’s exactly why I brought up Catholics—following your logic, they wouldn't be spared from these "isolated incidents" either. They'd get jumped just for being Catholic, just like how other groups get "exceptionally" targeted. Is that clear enough now?

Activists want to frame certain attacks (which sometimes have nothing to do with sexuality, just like the attacks on Stjepan Mason had nothing to do with anti-fascism) as organized terror by the majority against a minority.

But if this is hitting one specific group disproportionately, how can you call it accidental? Does society just hunt them down like dogs? No, but that doesn't mean there isn't a massive problem.

It's not some wild conspiracy; it's just the facts on the ground.

The fact of the matter is they don't have equal rights.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Look, people are gonna get jumped for whatever random reason pops into some idiot's head. It happens.

Nowadays, attacks on LGBTQ+ folks are super rare. And honestly, you gotta wonder—does someone actually get hit because they're gay, or are they just a person getting unlucky with some random jerk, which then gets framed as an attack on sexual orientation? It reminds me a bit of how Stjepan Mason used to claim every single thing that happened to him was somehow a direct strike against anti-fascism. 😁

Things aren't exactly hitting the fan. But activists are constantly lying and twisting common sense, claiming there’s this huge collective call for hate and violence against them. A few incidents involving some lone nut—which happen all the time—get painted as a coordinated group attack on a minority. On top of that, they love using hate speech and insults against values that don't even touch them unless they want it to.

And they have the exact same rights under the law? Every single one?

They have all the rights that come from the community they legalized. So yeah, they have all the rights.

See, that's why there are more cases where someone gets hurt just for being part of the LGBTQ+ crowd. Clearly, these aren't just "isolated incidents" if they're splitting society apart.

The answer to that really comes down to the question I asked above.

Even rarer than attacks on Catholics?

Things aren't alarming.

...not for those outside the LGBTQ+ community. But hey, what would be alarming then—if hundreds of them were being slaughtered? Or would that just be a "tiny little issue"?

They have all the rights that come from the community they legalized. So yeah, they have all the rights.

What a charming little word acrobatics...

Gregory Hall66 said:So, where are those allegedly beaten LGBTQ+ individuals?
Look at this:

And where is the data? It is nothing but hollow slogans and endless blather.
Why is it that no one ever bothers to publish the exact figures? I wonder why that is.

So, what's your point? You saying the media is lying? Or those people are lying?

Casey Mitchell72 said:Yeah, when was the last time a couple of hot-headed priests beat a lesbian to death? 🤷

What exactly is being forced on you? Is someone forcing you into a same-sex marriage? Is someone ordering you to participate in a gay orgy a certain number of times a month?

Both homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the right to legally formalize their relationships through free will and enjoy all the legal rights that come with that union.

Like I told you before, lately I haven't heard about a single case in America where someone was seriously harmed just because of their religion, regardless of what they believe.
I really hope we're long past the days when people were being hunted down for their faith.
Honestly, I don't know any group in America that's being physically targeted these days—I haven't heard anyone inciting violence against any specific group. Any physical attack, no matter the reason, gets condemned by the public and handled by the law.

Pop? Never. But man, I've definitely seen situations where someone else went after an LGBTQ+ guy.

Look, it's simple. Both gay and straight people should have the right to marry whoever they want, totally free and without anyone forcing their hand. If you choose to make it official, you should get all those legal rights that come with being in a committed union. Period.

And they have exactly the same rights under the law? Every single one?

Look, I've already told you—lately, I haven't heard of a single case in America where anyone was seriously targeted just because of their faith, no matter what they believe.

Look, that’s exactly why we see more incidents targeting people in the LGBTQ+ community. It’s clearly not just a bunch of "isolated incidents" when they're happening to one specific side of society.

Gregory Hall66 said:Hold on just a second—whose "position" are we actually discussing here?
Is it the stance of an LGBTQ+ organization, or perhaps something else entirely?😁

I don't know, you tell me—when was the last time a bunch of hyped-up lesbians beat a priest to death?

Jack Cook7 said:It’s someone else's culture, their way of seeing how people should act, their version of morality and ethics... just a complete stranger's worldview.

Basically, someone is trying to force a foreign lifestyle on us.

Jack Cook7
Should I just be polite while my brain gets violated by people forcing a lifestyle on me that isn't even part of who I am? Should I just sit there being "good," gentle, reasonable, cultured? Civilized?

restlesscrane152
Yeah.

Nope.

What exactly is being forced on you? Someone forcing you into a same-sex marriage? Some guy ordering you to join a gay orgy a certain number of times a month?

Casey Mitchell72 said:There have always been crazies around and there always will be. There's nothing we can do about it because mental instability is always gonna pop up in some percentage of the population, and it'll end in tragedy for someone over one thing or another.
But activists constantly trying to paint all lunatics as Catholic is just... well, 🙂 there are crazy Muslims, atheists, Mormons, or whatever else you want to throw in there. It’s totally insane to label an entire religion based on a few isolated cases of psychopathic behavior.

No. You missed the point. If this is happening to everyone (meaning no specific group is being singled out), then it’s going to happen to Catholics too. So, where are all these beaten-up Catholics?

Casey Mitchell72 said:Nah, it really isn't.

Can you please give me some "isolated incidents" where someone actually got beaten up just because they're Catholic? And I don't mean just getting insulted—I mean literally ending up in the ER and filing a police report.

Honestly, I can't think of a single recent case like that involving a Catholic here in the States. I do remember a guy from a tiny town who got jumped over his faith, but he was drunk and everything, though religion was the spark, so I guess that counts as a hate crime too.
Look, tons of women end up in the emergency room because of violence from men, but they don't start a public war against all men or demand they be wiped out.

Can LGBTQ+ people marry? Adopt kids? Look, I'm talking about LEGAL rights here, not whether someone thinks marriage is gross or whatever.

LGBTQ+ folks can definitely make their unions legal. The current laws regarding same-sex unions are pretty flawed, but there's a new bill in the works. I'm really hoping it fixes all those lingering issues, especially the stuff involving adoption and kids.

The issue isn't the religion itself—it's specifically about Catholics. Why target them? Look, if these are just isolated incidents, then it means they're happening to everyone in society on an individual basis. And yeah, that includes Catholics too.

Because crazies don't pick and choose, right?

Casey Mitchell72 said:Nobody is forcing anything on anyone except for those activist groups trying to shove their views down the throats of people who see the world differently. And they do it using exactly this kind of nonsense—lies, insults (calling people names like "clerical fascists"), and manipulation, pretending they aren't being pushy when they totally are. Meanwhile, those conservatives just want to be left alone and let everyone else live their lives too. 🙄

And that's the point—we shouldn't even have to bring it up! We reached a stage a long time ago where nobody should be hitting, insulting, or discriminating based on sexual orientation. Sure, there will always be isolated incidents, and those are always wrong, but overall, we haven't had to deal with widespread discrimination for ages. "Discrimination" is just another buzzword activists use when they run out of actual arguments during their public rants.

What exactly are you forcing on gay people?
Don't just give me the "traditional values" line, because nobody is forcing that on them. People have had the right to live how they want and follow whatever values they choose for a long time now. Everyone lives their life without issues at work or on the street. Like I said before, let's not lump isolated incidents together; both gay and straight people deal with random outbursts from others now and then.

So you're telling me this initiative isn't targeting the LGBTQ+ community at all? Seriously?

Isolated cases happen, and they always will—that’s a total disgrace. But honestly? On a global scale, people stopped talking about actual discrimination a long time ago.

Give me some "isolated incidents," please—you know, times when someone actually got beaten up just for being Catholic. And I’m not talking about some random verbal insults or being heckled. I mean literal physical assaults where they ended up in the ER and had to file a police report.

Everyone’s had the right to live however they want for ages. Live by your own values. Period.

Can LGBTQ+ folks get married? Adopt kids? Look, I’m talking about LEGAL rights here—not what someone thinks marriage should be or if they think it's gross or whatever.

Jack Cook7 said:Look, I don't have a single problem with THAT specific stance. But what am I supposed to do when people start forcing stuff on me that just isn't part of my culture? 🤷

Am I just expected to sit there politely while someone performs mental assault on me, trying to force a lifestyle onto me that simply isn't who I am? Should I just be "good," gentle, reasonable, and cultured? Be "civilized"?

Or are we all just gonna have to shut down the lights at some local dive bar?

Anyway, has any of you actually seen one of those sketchy neighborhood bars after the lights go out? Usually, people are pretty decent once things settle down.

Of course I can. But then you'll just end up with a few million more "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

Great! So we'll have jobs for a few million people just to do the work of one illiterate peasant. That's what they call progress and civilization, right? It's called service outsourcing, matrix management, whatever.

I mean, what else would they all be doing with their lives?
🤔

What exactly are you getting at?

So I’m supposed to just play nice while someone’s basically raping my brain? Force some behavior on me that isn't even who I am? What, I should just be "good," gentle, reasonable, and polite? Act all civilized? Give me a break!

Yeah.

Jack Cook7 said:And apparently, you aren't a good person if you aren't LGBTQ+, if you don't jump to defend them at every single opportunity, if you don't have LGBTQ+ tattooed on your forehead, and if your ringtone isn't "We Are The Champions" by Freddie Mercury...

Totalitarian thinking and fascism are just that simple; you just need to have half a brain to spot them.

Jack Cook7
So why don't they just set clear criteria for what actually counts as being "threatened"? Or is it just way better and more profitable to stay in that gray area?

restlesscrane152
Because it's hard to define, just like a lot of other things.

Oh, sure! So you mean millions of "brilliant" intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any random guy in a small town could figure out in five seconds?

Is someone manipulating things here? Nooooooo... because this is clearly a culture of truth, not lies and deception. I'd never lie, honest to God. I'm a class act. 👍

Look, their point is actually totally fine—just don't hit us, don't insult us, and don't discriminate against us. Honestly, that's just common sense stuff that shouldn't even be up for debate.

So what, you're saying millions of world-class intellectuals over the last 50 years haven't been able to define things that any uneducated guy in the sticks could figure out?

Sure they can. But then you'll just get another few million "intellectuals" finding loopholes in those definitions and exploiting them.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Honestly, I didn't get the vibe that UIO is playing the victim card at all 🤷

Politicians just do this to chase votes (total shocker, right?). As for public opinion, it's way too messy to pin down and probably depends on a million things. For me personally, it's those LGBTQ+ groups and conservatives who try way too hard to push their lifestyle down my throat.

Wait, what "forces" are conservatives using to push their lifestyle on you? Like, are they forcing you to get married? Or telling you to start a family? Making you pray? 🤷

Nah, they’re just forcing their own way of living as the only right way. Like, you're automatically a bad person if you aren't all about patriotism, faith in God, traditional values, and all that stuff.

So why don't they just set clear criteria for what actually counts as an endangered zone? Or is staying in that gray area just way more profitable?

Because, just like a lot of other stuff, it's honestly pretty hard to define.

Casey Mitchell72 said:I'm gonna repost what Jack Cook7 said—hey Jack Cook7, I need your take on the bolded part and an answer to what's underlined.

Already covered this, but I’ll say it one more time and that's it—the LGBTQ+ crowd told UIO to stop acting like they're the ones being victimized.

Jack Cook7 said:So, Mr. restlesscrane152, do you actually know anything about the LGBTQ+ community or their role in America over, say, the last 30 years? And how on earth is it that so many politicians and "public servants" suddenly start pushing "gay-friendly" stances out of nowhere, basically being blackmailed by certain activist groups?

If you actually have the inside scoop, feel free to share it with us—don't feel like you have to keep it to yourself.

Politicians do it for votes—big shocker there. As for public opinion, it's way too complicated; probably a bunch of different factors at play. Speaking for myself, though, I'm way less annoyed by LGBTQ+ groups than I am by conservatives who try to shove their lifestyle down my throat 24/7.

brightwolf85 said:Let me get this straight: in America, you can call a Catholic a clerical fascist or a Catholic Taliban because they belong to the majority, but you can't call a gay man a slur because he belongs to a minority? Because of logic like yours, I am going to be voting YES in the referendum with absolute pleasure.

Are you guys actually trying this hard to be clueless, or is being this dense just your natural state?

Rules should be the same for everyone, period. If they don't apply equally, what's the point? And seriously, quit whining about how those wicked LGBTQ+ folks are out to get you or destroying traditional values. Claiming they’re eating toddlers or abusing puppies is just straight-up ridiculous. We all know that's total nonsense.

Casey Mitchell72 said:Honestly, I don't think you quite get it—neither the initiative itself nor Zeljko Markic have ever even used that kind of rhetoric. 😉

How can you say they aren't? They've been whining about the breakdown of the family unit this whole damn time!

Jack Cook7 said:Alright, thanks for the lesson, clearly I've got some issues with reading comprehension and proofreading public statements. So, if "Željko Markić's initiative isn't an endangered minority," then it should actually be written like this:

- Željko Markić's "initiative" isn't an endangered minority.

Because nobody ever claimed that Željko Markić's organization—aka his "initiative"—is an endangered minority.

So, is this just a pointless statement that doesn't match reality? Fact manipulation? Or is it just pure amateur hour, where someone uses (maybe intentionally?) sloppy wording to equate:

- the organization (meaning its actual members), with
- the initiative (meaning everyone who signed the petition), with
- an endangered minority?

Is that manipulation, Mr. restlesscrane152?

You totally missed the point. Let me break it down for you:

"Željka Markić's initiative isn't an endangered minority (like the LGBTQ+ community is)."

So yeah, they aren't a marginalized group, which means all that talk about them being "persecuted" as a minority? Total nonsense.

Jack Cook7 said:Here we go again. Just another installment in this endless, multi-year saga of media hit pieces that—if you ask me—are doing nothing but stirring up unnecessary drama and inciting hate for absolutely no reason.

I can't believe this stuff keeps happening. I was just scrolling through Index and saw this latest mess—honestly, it’s getting ridiculous at this point. You see these headlines and you just have to shake your head. It feels like every time we think things are settling down, some new drama pops up out of nowhere. It’s wild how much noise there is around these issues lately. One minute everyone is acting like everything is fine, and the next, it’s a total circus. Honestly, if you aren't paying attention, you're missing half the story, but even when you *are* paying attention, it’s exhausting! Just one thing after another. Anyway, what do you guys think? Is it just me, or is the whole situation getting more absurd by the day?

Title: Markić and his crusade to "destroy the LGBT portal!" Clearly, they’re spiraling because the referendum isn't going their way.

I can't even begin to process this excerpt. It’s just... wow.

Jurčić: They’re freaking out, so now they're throwing around lawsuits!

Honestly, the groups fighting for LGBT rights aren't even blinking at this latest stunt from the "In the Name of the Family" initiative. They just filed a criminal complaint against that activist site Crol.hr, and yeah, it’s exactly what you'd expect.

Marko Jurčić told Index that this whole move is a dead giveaway. He thinks Željko Markić and the "In the Name of the Family" initiative are totally panicking because their big referendum plan isn't going exactly how they dreamed it would. Now, they’re just out there suing everyone in sight to try and stay relevant.

"This whole initiative is just a massive scam targeting everyday citizens by manipulating signatures," Jurčić said. "Since they can't seem to find a way to fast-track democracy, they’re resorting to these rushed, desperate moves and filing baseless lawsuits. On top of that, 'In the Name of the Family' and healthieducation.com share the exact same bank account, which basically proves they're the same organization. While 'In the Name of the Family' plays it safe with neutral language, their other project—the healthieducation.com initiative—is absolutely loaded with hate speech and violent rhetoric. It’s a textbook case of double standards."

Look, Crol.hr is just running a standard news site here. They’ve got actual journalists doing their jobs, and they're super quick about scrubbing any comments that cross the line into hate speech. It’s pretty routine stuff. But then you have Željka Markić—she actually filed a formal complaint after the site had already wiped out all those hateful comments herself! So, the site did its part, and she still went ahead with the legal report.

He’s out here claiming that Americans need to wake up and realize that "In the Name of the Family" and healthieducation.com are actually just two different faces of the exact same organization, all run by the same person.

Sanja Juras, who heads up the legal team over at Kontra and their Index initiative, was just pointing out that Section 325 of the Penal Code isn't some random rule. She says the whole reason they put that specific part of the Penal Code in there was to protect vulnerable minorities from being targeted by violence. Basically, it’s about keeping people safe.

"Look, Željko Markić’s little initiative isn't some marginalized group fighting for rights—it’s basically just a group set up to stir the pot and spread hate against the LGBT community," Sanja Juras told us. She also pointed out that they can't even lean on that article, and honestly, they don't have a leg to stand on for filing any complaints since Crol.hr already wiped out all those nasty comments. At the end of the day, this is just a direct attack on a news outlet trying to report on protecting LGBT human rights.

Here’s what Marko Jurčić had to say:

Marko Jurčić told Index that this whole move is just a dead giveaway. He thinks Željko Markić and his "In the Name of the Family" group are starting to panic because their big referendum plan isn't going exactly how they dreamed it would. Now, they’re just out there suing everyone in sight.

This whole initiative is nothing but a massive scam designed to play people with their signatures. Since they can't find a way to fast-track democracy, they’re just resorting to these desperate, half-baked moves and filing totally baseless lawsuits.

It’s pure manipulation, plain and simple. This whole referendum process is just dragging on because the people in power are throwing everything they can at it to stall us. You've got the administration, Marko Jurčić, and those LGBT lobbyists all working together to block progress—and honestly, they conveniently forget the "Q" whenever they address the public. Terms like "a total fraud against the citizens," "signature tampering," "rushed moves," or calling things "baseless accusations"? That’s textbook. It's a classic case of weaponizing buzzwords just to throw shade and make the other side look bad. Total manipulation.

Picture this: first, you go out of your way to grind the democratic process down to a halt. Then, the second the other side points out how painfully slow everything is moving, you flip the script and accuse *them* of manipulating things, being in a total panic, and making reckless moves.

If that isn't straight-up manipulation and Machiavellian scheming, I don't know what is. Maybe it's just pure panic.

Here’s another thing Sanja Juras said:

"The initiative led by Željko Markić is not a threatened minority, but rather a group created specifically to incite hatred against LGBT people."

The first part of that statement is complete nonsense. "The initiative led by Željko Markić is not a threatened minority"—what is that even supposed to mean? Can someone please explain that one to me?

Then comes the second part, which "logically" follows the first: "but rather a group created specifically to incite hatred against LGBT people."

She’s claiming that the group represented by Željko Markić exists solely to spread hate.

Now, this is getting into legal territory. Ms. Juras is throwing around accusations against a legitimate organization, claiming they were built for the express purpose of fueling hate toward a specific group, all without providing a single shred of actual evidence. Honestly, it feels like Ms. Juras is the one publicly inciting hatred here. It’s about time these groups were held to some actual common sense.

Happy to help! It's just classic right-wing rhetoric—always acting like they're being oppressed or like their "traditional values" are under attack. This lady basically told them that despite all their loud propaganda, they aren't some tiny persecuted minority. They're actually the massive majority and nobody is actually oppressing them. Clear enough?

Terry Lee8 said:I assume this would apply if you’re operating as a sole proprietor under the US tax system—basically, when you issue an invoice for intellectual services performed.

In those situations, how you handle a copyright agreement depends entirely on whether the contract specifies the fee as a gross or net amount, and who is ultimately responsible for the tax hit.

If your client is insisting on a formal invoice, just draft one that reflects the terms of your signed agreement. Make sure to include your professional details, the total amount due, and then simply settle the tax obligations with the IRS afterward.

You might find this helpful: http://www.iammoney.com/Issuing-and...1,-R2)/51.aspx

Sales tax isn't even the issue here. People abroad bill for stuff all the time without any hiccups, even in states where there isn't a sales tax at all.

One client actually just sent out an invoice on my behalf once—looks like they do that all the time.

Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

Laura Davis44 said:If you're working under a freelance contract, you don't even bother issuing an invoice; you just stick to the signed agreement that clearly outlines the agreed-upon gross or net amount.

Standard practice is that besides the contract, you still send over an invoice just as a little nudge that, you know, payment is due. Clients pretty much expect an invoice.

So now I'm dying to know—is an author actually allowed (or maybe I should ask if they're forbidden) under US law to issue an invoice or something similar?