As a business man or woman, You need people who have the ears of the great and mighty in our midst.

People who are strategically positioned to put in a word or two on your behalf

It's time to pray for such people to come into our lives and business.

Daniel 1:3 KJV
And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of d children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;

An unpopular name in d bible.(ASHPENAZ)

Mentioned just once.

He was a master servant In d king's palace
ASHPENAZ represents men that are strategically positioned.

1. ASHPENAZ was a eunuch and a scout too
2. He had access to the corridors of power.
3. He had the king's ears.
4. His job was to identify talents, groom talents and then, open doors for them.
5. If you found favour in
the eyes of Ashpenaz, you were almost 100% certain, you will find favour before the king.

Ashpenazs' are major players.

Gifts and callings aren't enough, you need an ASHPENAZ.

You need people who have the ears of d great & mighty in our midst.

One man or woman can come into

More from Pastor 't.O.s.I.n. Olunuga

More from Messagethreadreaderapp unroll

You May Also Like

“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.

Always. No, your company is not an exception.

A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.

Listen to Aditya


And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.

I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.

You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.

Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.