G Form Blank: Fill & Download for Free

Absolutely not, In fact, the opposite. It has ‘won’ over several diesels in its lifetime. All of the negativity you will read about the turbine are from non tankers and usually from someone with a “Grrrr ‘Murica” agenda who wants to knock it down a peg. Real American tankers bitch and complain about plenty of things on the tank (especially the shitty heaters when you have a 1000 degree turbine a few feet away from you!); the Turbine is not one of them.So let's dispel the major internet myths about the Turbine.It is unreliable and difficult/expensive to maintain.Verdict: Complete and utter bullshit. This myth comes from the early M1s (the 105mm versions) where the air filters were not seating properly by unskilled crew who were not used to the air filtration demands of a turbine vs a diesel. Also, because they were used to M60s they didn’t follow proper procedure and cleaning the filters and often the right equipment wasn’t even available.The Air filters were quickly redesigned, a lever and clamping system for the “vee packs” was installed that won’t let you put them in wrong (well, you can with enough force if you are strong and dumb enough but then will noticeably crush the filter). The tank was fitted with a blower system that helps clean them when idling (doesn’t replace manually blowing them out, but it helps a lot in the desert) and finally all tanks were fitted with a pressure fitting and issued a hose. This allows you to use your wing man’s tank to clean your filters, then he uses your tank to clean his.The engine has so few moving parts it is ultra reliable; in 10 years I replaced exactly 2 turbines, One was damaged when the hydraulic pump failed, breaking the auxiliary drive. The turbine itself was undamaged but the casing was cracked and so needed to be rebuilt.The second was in complete flawless running order. It had reached its rebuild time of 1,000 hours a few years before I joined the Army but was left in place as it was the early 90s and there was no threat; that was in the Bn maintenance record for the tank. It hit 2,000 hours in 98 when I got to my unit in Germany. It was running fine and was approved by a different Bn commander to stay in place because of budget. I left Germany on assignment in 2000 and came back in summer of 2001. Delta company’s tanks were gone and lo and behold, my old delta company D11 tank had been transferred to Charlie company and was now my ride again C65. The engine was at over 2,800 hours.We got orders in January to deploy to Iraq in March 2003. The engine now had almost 4,500 hours on it and we were ordered against our objections to replace it before we deployed.In my BN we replaced more than ten over-2000-hour perfectly running engines in the month before we deployed.There have been no new engines produced since 1992! They last so long and can be so effectively rebuilt (at the factory, not at some mechanic shop like a 500-hour diesel can) that there are tons of spares. Most turbine failures can be rebuilt; many Diesel engine failures, at the power levels made here, require a new block. Can’t rebuild an engine that throws a rod, crank walks or sometimes spins a bearing.This report contains more and goes into the high reliability of the turbine and the problems with air filters and fuel pumps encountered in the first gulf war.http://archive.gao.gov/d31t10/145879.pdf2) Diesel in tank X is more powerful.Verdict on paper. Only BS in real life.When I was part of the evaluation team, 3 different diesels were installed, to include the Leopard 2’s MTU. One was even officially an option to make export Abrams more attractive. The only consistent thing we found in testing was that all of the diesels were universally reviled by crews who were used to the Turbine.My favorite comment was that it was like going from a 1968 Boss 302 Mustang (375HP) to the CAFE-strangled 1975 Mustang II with the 302 with a optimistic ‘net’ 140 hp.Though the MTU and AGT deliver similar power on paper, the way they deliver power cannot be more different.The MTU only has a slight advantage in the very top of the operating range. Our transmission shifts long before that and keeping the MTU revved that high will significantly shorten its life. Up to 60% engine speed, the turbine murders the MTU output in hp and especially in torque. By the time the MTU ‘gets in the power band’ the M1 is already in the next gear deep in its band again. We’ve drag raced the Germans at Grafenwoehr, the Leo doesn’t stand a chance. The Early Leclerc, when it was running (it used a turbine as a turbocharger allowing it to pre spool but was very unreliable), can often just edge out the Abrams and it is almost 20 tons lighter. The New one uses an updated version of the Leo 2s engine.In the end we completely abandoned attempting to replace it; it just isn’t worth it for the fuel savings (see below).3) Fuel consumption:Verdict: slightly true on an individual basis, A non-issue in the grand scheme of things. Way overblown by people who don’t know any better.(Edit: Added all of the numbers I meant to originally but somehow left out as well as formulas for people checking my math)Detailed study of the Gulf war showed that the tanks consumed but a small fraction of all the fuel used in the war. A full 71% of of all of the 2 billion gallons (7.8 billion liters) of fuel used during the ENTIRETY of the 1991 gulf war was used by air power alone. The Navy consumed the vast majority of the remainder.https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a263676.pdfFor every single Tank in a combat theater there are at least 2 other and often 3 non turbine powered vehicles, minimum.Depending on which source you use, the in-theater M1’s consumed between 2 and 3% of the 162 million gallons of fuel allocated to the Army or, to be precise, it is estimated that the 1845–2024 Abrams in theater assigned to combat units (that number also varies on the report used) used between 3.25 and 4.8 million gallons of fuel or on average about 2600 gallons per tank. In the GAO report I listed above, you will see that crews preferred (and still prefer) not to use the front tanks as they are more difficult to fill and provide a reserve. Meaning the average fill up was >300 gallons. (In the GAO Report you will see that some front fuel tank pumps failed due to disuse, limiting the tank to a bit more than 50% of its fuel capacity) so about 10–13 fill-ups per tank which matches up with a few months of garrison and 100 hours of ground war.A Leopard 2 on average goes 5% further on 37% less fuel.https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a612791.pdfSo if all Abrams used Leo 2 engines the total fuel consumption would have been reduced by between .8% (2%-2%*.95*.63)and 1.2% (3%*.95*.63) or between 26,000 (3,250,000*.8)and 57,000 gallons of fuel. (4,000,000*1.2)The Oshkosh M978 HEMTT A4 fuel-servicing truck, or tanker, is designed to transport 2,500 gallons of fuel.So we would have saved exactly 10-20 (Edit. Had said 10–15 before but was using the best case numbers for both, jumps up 5 more with worse case) damned fuel trucks. If your entire war effort logistics train will break due to 20 fuel trucks, you have already lost the war.(Edit: Additional info from the comments)Any country that currently uses a diesel-powered tank (so all of them) didn’t and still don’t have the logistical capability to supply the amount of fuel for the war effort regardless of how much their tanks burned; you could replace all 1845 to 2040 Abrams with Toyota Priuses (Priusi? or Is Prius both singular and Plural?) and they wouldn’t have been able to supply the rest of the war effort.The point is that while an equivalent diesel tank like a Leopard 2 is a bit less than 40% more efficient than an M1 (.6 miles per gallon vs .98 miles per gallon), it is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the war. Almost to the point of irrelevance.Do you know what else we get every time we get fuel? Food and Water. Again a Leopard goes just 5% further than an M1 because the diesel engine is so much larger it eats into the fuel storage, the 4 guys inside need just as much food and water as the 4 guys inside the Abrams, and while it doesn’t need as much fuel as an Abrams, it needs it 95% as often as an Abrams does.We are keeping the Turbine–Point blank

British currency in the 18th century, in common with most other European countries in those days, used three different units rather than the two which is most common today. That is, instead of just pounds and pence, they used pounds, shillings and pence. Only extremely expensive items would ever need to be priced in pounds: everyday expenses such as food and rent were usually priced in shillings and pennies.This system had originally been set up in the reign of Emperor Charlemagne, and had been adopted in most of western Europe. He officially defined the pound as a unit of weight. He then ordered the imperial mints to coin silver pennies at a rate of 240 coins made from each pound of silver. Flipped the other way around, this meant that 240 pennies were worth one pound of silver, and would (in theory) weigh exactly 1 lb.As for the shilling: in Charlemagne's day the Byzantine Empire issued a gold coin called the solidus (or νόμισμα, nomisma, in Greek), which was widely used in the West as well. This gold coin was worth approximately 12 silver pennies. Charlemagne incorporated this into his system, as an accounting convenience, fixing the value of the solidus at 12 of his pennies.The three currency units were thus known in Latin as the librum, solidus and denarius. In French those names became the livre, sou and denier; in German the Pfund, Schilling and Pfennig; and in English the pound, shilling and penny. In Britain the abbreviation L. s. d. was used for pounds, shillings and pence, using the Latin rather than English terms. The modern British pound sign £ is basically just a letter 'L' written in a fancy way, with a curly top and a horizontal line through it.The exchange rate was thus:12 pennies = 1 shilling240 pennies = 1 pound20 shillings = 1 poundNote that by the 18th century, the direct link between the pound as a unit of weight and the pound as a unit of currency in Britain had been broken. Instead, the official standard (adopted in 1601) was that one troy pound (373 g) of sterling silver should be used to make 62 shillings or 744 pennies. That meant that a single penny would weigh 0.50 g, and a shilling would weigh 6.02 g.When a value or price was written down, items up to eleven pence would be written as the number followed by the abbreviation 'd.': for example 6d. That would be read aloud as 'six pence'.There were two ways of representing the word shilling in text: as the abbreviation 's.', or simply as a diagonal slash /. If the slash was used, the number of pennies was written directly after it with no need for a 'd.' as well: if the number of pennies was zero, a horizontal line was put in to signify a blank space.For example, 'five shillings' could be written as either 5s. or as 5/-.'Six shillings and eight pence' could be written as either 6s. 8d. or as 6/8. This would often be read aloud as simply 'six and eight', or sometimes 'six and eightpence'.The pound was represented by the £ symbol, which was usually placed before the number rather than after it. (Though not universally; you could sometimes encounter the value 'five pounds' written as 5£ rather than £5. This seems to have been a matter of personal style.)Three pounds, eleven shillings and six pence would be written as £3 11s. 6d. Occasionally, if space was at a premium, this might be written more simply as £3-11-6.English schoolchildren were required to learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide using this system. For example, if you have £3 11s. 6d. and have to pay for something worth £1 0s. 9d. then share the remaining money out between three people, how much will each person get? (The answer is 16s. 11d. each.)As far as circulating currency goes, for most of the 18th century there were large copper coins worth less than a penny, small silver coins worth multiples of a penny, larger silver coins worth a shilling or multiples of a shilling, gold coins worth slightly more than half a pound and a pound, and paper banknotes for values much larger than a pound. Most ordinary people would never handle currency denominated in pounds, and would rarely even see a banknote, let alone use one. For working class people a £20 note could represent more than their entire gross annual income.The following coins were in circulation for most of the century:FarthingThe lowest-value coin, worth a quarter of a penny. Made of copper, it usually featured the monarch's head on one side and a picture of the goddess Britannia on the other. Weight around 5 g, diameter around 24 mm. (Slightly smaller than a modern 2 pence piece.)HalfpennyWorth half a penny. The word was usually pronounced and sometimes written as ha'penny (the 'a' pronounced as in 'hay'). The halfpenny looked identical to the farthing, except that it was exactly twice as heavy (and therefore bigger and thicker). This was probably the most common coin in circulation in the 1700s. Weight around 10 g, diameter around 28 mm. (The width of a modern £2 coin, but slightly less heavy.)PennyOddly enough, even though this was the basic unit of currency, hardly any coins valued at one penny were in circulation during this period. During the previous century, it was calculated that the value of the silver in a penny plus the labour cost of making it was significantly more than one penny per coin, so the government was losing money on each one it minted. The result was that only a very few pennies were minted in the 18th century, as commemorative issues rather than circulating currency.Those pennies which were produced were tiny silver coins, much smaller than any modern British coin in circulation. The design was the number '1' with a crown above it, with (as usual) the monarch's head on the other side. Weight around 0.5 g, diameter around 12 mm.ThreepenceA coin was produced valued at three pennies. It was also known as the 'threepenny bit' or as a 'thruppence'. Produced and circulated in reasonable quantities, especially in the early part of the century.The design was similar to the penny, except with a '3' instead of a '1' under the crown. The coin was also exactly three times heavier than the penny: which makes it slightly smaller than a modern 5p piece, but half the weight. Weight around 1.5 g, diameter around 17 mm.FourpenceAnother multiple of the penny, this one worth four pennies. The coin was also known as a 'groat', a word originally derived from Dutch ('groot' meaning 'big', in the sense that a groat was a 'big penny'). A relatively small number were produced, but they could be found in circulation fairly often.Predictably, the design was also similar to the penny, but with a '4' under the crown, and the coin weighed four times more than a penny. In modern terms, it was slightly larger than a modern 5p piece, but thinner and lighter. Weight around 2 g, diameter around 19 mm.SixpenceYet another multiple of the penny, worth six pennies, or half a shilling. This coin was minted in large quantities and was commonly encountered. The slang name for a sixpence was a 'tanner', which may have been named after an officer of the Royal Mint named Tanner in the reign of George II, or may have come from a Romany word.The design on the reverse was four heraldic shields topped by crowns, arranged in a cross pattern with their bases towards the centre. In the reign of William III the shields were those of England, Scotland, Ireland and France, with the Lion of Nassau (symbolising the House of Orange) in the centre between them. George I sixpences showed the arms of Great Britain (England and Scotland impaled), Ireland, France and Hanover, with a star design in the centre. The coin weighed six times as much as a penny, and was similar in size to a modern British 1p coin. Weight around 3 g, diameter around 21 mm.ShillingThe second of the basic units of value after the penny, the shilling was worth 12 pennies or one twentieth of a pound. These coins were in regular circulation: one or two shillings per day was a typical wage for a working class man. The nickname 'bob' for a shiling (as in 'ten bob' meaning 10/-) was thieves' cant in the 18th century, which became regular slang later.Similar to the distinction between the farthing and halfpenny, the shilling looked identical to the sixpence but was twice as heavy, and consequently larger. In modern terms the shilling was about the size of a 2p piece. Weight around 6 g, diameter around 26 mm.Half CrownThe half crown coin had a value of two and a half shillings, generally expressed as 2/6 (two shillings and sixpence). There were eight half-crowns to the pound (and 30 pennies in a half-crown). This was the largest silver coin in regular circulation.The design of the coin was the same as the shilling, except two and a half times heavier. These coins were even larger than modern £2 coins. Weight around 15 g, diameter around 34 mm.CrownThe crown was worth five shillings, or a quarter of a pound. (Or 60 pennies.) These were huge and heavy silver coins, and were rarely used except in international financial transactions or as collector's pieces. The British crown was roughly equal in size to the Spanish peso de 8 ('piece of eight') which was also known as the dollar, so crowns were also nicknamed 'dollars'. The crown was more than twice the weight of a modern £2 coin, and a third larger in diameter. The design was similar to the half-crown. Weight around 30 g, diameter around 39 mm.Half GuineaThis was a gold coin, first produced in 1669 during the reign of King Charles II. It was worth half a guinea — see below for details. The design was similar to the shilling and crown coins with the four shields arranged in a cross pattern. The coin was similar in size to a modern penny, but heavier since it was made of gold. Weight around 4 g, diameter around 20 mm.GuineaThe guinea was introduced by King Charles II in 1663, soon after the Restoration. It was made from 22-carat gold which was first imported from Guinea in West Africa, hence the name. Originally, the guinea coin was defined as being worth exactly one pound, or 20 shillings. However, the market price of gold increased, and by the 1680s people were demanding 22 shillings per guinea instead of the official 20. By 1700 the price had risen even further to 30 shillings, so a guinea was effectively worth one and a half pounds. (This is the problem with basing the value of your currency on a tradeable commodity like gold: its value fluctuates with supply and demand.)During the early 18th century the price of gold fell back again to its 1680s levels. In 1717, King George I fixed the exchange rate between gold and silver coins by decree, at the then-current market value of 21 shillings to the guinea. (That also meant that the half-guinea became fixed at ten and a half shillings, or 10/6.)In other words, after 1717 there was a coin worth one pound plus one shilling (21 shillings or 252 pennies), but no coin worth exactly one pound. The sovereign was not in circulation in the 18th century: it was introduced in 1817.Since a guinea was worth 5% more than a pound, it became a sign of conspicuous consumption to price high-status items such as clothing and jewellery in guineas rather than pounds. A middle class naval officer might buy his uniform for five pounds; the tailor next door catering to a more aristocratic clientele might sell the same uniform for five guineas, because his customers were wealthy enough to ignore the 5% mark-up, and wanted people to know it. Similarly, a carpenter might quote his prices in pounds, but a lawyer would quote his fees in guineas.Occasionally the mark-up was not done purely for status. An auction house might sell an item on behalf of a client for 10 guineas, but pass on a payment of 10 pounds to the seller; the missing 10 shillings was their 5% commission.Several designs of guinea were made. One design was similar to that of the lower-value coins with the four shields, though they were often separated by sceptres as well. An alternative minted in certain years had a single large shield with the royal arms displayed. Guineas were about the size of a modern £2 coin, but thinner and closer in weight to a £1 coin. Weight around 8 g, diameter around 28 mm.It should be noted that with the exception of the penny, threepence and fourpence coins, none of the coins had their value shown anywhere: and the design of almost all the coins was also very similar. People had to tell them apart primarily by material, weight and size, not by looking at what was on the coin.In addition to the official government coins produced by the Royal Mint, it was quite common in the 18th century for private institutions to produce their own tokens, which could be used in place of coins in trading with them. There was a growing problem with coin shortages in Britain: the government minted relatively few coins due to shortages of precious metals, while those that were in circulation were often clipped (trimming off the edges of coins to shave off a small amount of gold or silver: this was highly illegal, but also common) or counterfeited.People who were lucky enough to receive a genuine, full weight coin as payment or wages were often reluctant to offer it back out in payment themselves, and instead hoarded it: meaning that the amount of non-fake and non-underweight coins in circulation declined further. Making matters worse, the industrial revolution of the later 18th century resulted in millions of people moving into the cities and taking paid jobs for wages, instead of working on the family farm. Those wages had to be paid in coinage, which was becoming increasingly rare.In 1787, a mining company based in Anglesey in Wales began minting its own copper coinage, using the metal produced in its mine, and used it to pay its workers. The idea caught on rapidly across the country; before long there were millions of such tokens in circulation, in thousands of different designs. The industrialist Matthew Boulton built a factory in Birmingham capable of stamping out over 600 tokens every minute, using the revolutionary new technology of steam power. Most of these tokens were copper and valued at half a penny.These copper tokens were occasionally used to spread political messages as well as act as currency. Some became collectors’ items as soon as they were issued.Eventually, in 1797, the government was spurred into action and agreed to put large numbers of low-denomination coins into circulation itself. Boulton's factory was given the contract to make them. The reappearance of official state-backed currency led to a decline in the use of the private coins, and eventually (in 1817) it was made illegal to produce them.Finally, banknotes. The banking industry in England developed greatly in the 16th and 17th centuries as an offshoot of the goldsmiths' trade. Goldsmiths made jewellery and ornaments out of precious metals, which meant that their workshops usually had large quantities of highly valuable and highly stealable materials lying around. To protect them they invested heavily in security: vaults, locks, bars and guards. But then, some goldsmiths hit on the idea of getting a second income by allowing private citizens to store their own valuables in their vaults. To a wealthy gentleman, it was much more attractive and safer to keep your stock of guineas in a goldsmith's vault than hiding them under your bed, even if the goldsmith charged you a small fee to do so. Before long, many goldsmiths were making more money from acting as bankers and accepting deposits than they were from crafting golden jewellery.The person depositing his money with a goldsmith would receive a written receipt in return. These receipts included a set form of words, that the goldsmith "promised to pay [the individual] on demand the sum of [amount deposited]". If the depositor only wanted to withdraw part of his money, then the receipt would be amended and counter-signed to show the new amount being held.The next stage of development came when people realised that these receipts could be used instead of money in their own right. If you had £30 in the bank and needed to pay that money to someone else, then instead of going all the way to the bank to withdraw it first, why not just give them your receipt, and let them go and fetch it? In effect, the receipt became a form of currency itself.The Bank of England was set up in 1694. It was privately owned, but had a Royal Charter to act as the government's official banker and manage their loans. However, in the early days the Bank of England also acted as a conventional bank, taking on normal members of the public as customers. Initially it issued receipts to its depositors just like other banks did: these were hand-written by bank clerks, and showed the exact amount in pounds, shillings and pence deposited in the bank on the note.In 1725, the Bank of England began pre-printing its notes, with spaces for the cashier to fill in the details such as the name of the payee, the amount and the date. While some times a note might still be made out for an odd amount representing the exact quantity of money deposited, it became more common to issue them in fixed, round-numbered denominations like £20 or £50, to make it easier to use them in commercial transactions. By 1745 the Bank of England had pre-printed notes for denominations ranging from £20 up to £1000; in 1759 they issued a £10 note as well, in 1793 a £5 note, and in 1797 a £1 note. (They had been reluctant to issue low-value notes because they preferred people to use gold currency for such small transactions. The French Revolutionary Wars forced them to temporarily suspend gold payments.) These pre-printed notes were still manually signed and numbered by a Bank of England cashier; fully-printed notes did not appear until 1853. Still, they were already, in effect, a form of currency for very high-value transactions.Five pound note from 1793The Bank of England was not the only bank to issue banknotes: any private bank could do so during the 18th century, with some regulations. By 1784 there were over 100 'country banks' in England outside London. The value of a banknote issued by a country bank depended on the recipient's opinion of the bank's stability and financial trustworthiness. The Bank of England, as the government's own banker, was considered the gold standard for reliability; but unless you were in London it was not always easy to obtain Bank of England banknotes.Laws would be passed in 1826 allowing the Bank of England to open branches outside London to distribute its notes widely; in 1833 making its notes legal tender in England and Wales, and in 1844 removing the right of any bank to issue banknotes if it wasn't already doing so. As such, the circulation of banknotes in England and Wales was made much more centralised; but that was a development of the 19th century, not the 18th.

I have gotten a peek at the industry, through hobbyist modelling.Most agency models enter the industry in their teens — between 13–16.15 year old Laneya Grace; ft. in ‘Wake Me Up’ - Avicii.It is a winner-take-all market.They are independent contract workers, not employees and thus miss out on certain benefits and protections.There is a constant influx of young, beautiful girls entering the industry - seniority does not bring privilege for the vast majority.The successful models work internationally and have to relocate frequently. They can be cramped together with other young models in so-called ‘model apartments’.These model apartments are an integral part of the Fashion Industry.In many cases, models say, it's the agencies that rent housing that can rake in as much as five times the market rate.The Model Life - BTS‘Veteran’ Victoria Secret AngelsThe industry can be all-consuming — they forget, or are simply unable to maintain their familial bonds, relationships, and education - a lot of these girls do not have an exit-plan for when they age - fade out of the industry!Occupational hazard:Models can get invited to a lot of exclusive parties, since promoters will seek them out and treat them lavishly, as the models are the honeypot — the bees: DJs, musicians, producers and other connected people need a form of currency, as well as trophies, after all…They can get drunk off the attention, status and fawning, as well as the somewhat subtle negative feedback, that keeps them on their toes and in competition with each other. Most of them may even be aware of this, with a mature mindset - yet it is ridiculously hard to keep your head on at all times, especially in a circus environment. It can cause temporary blindness or tunnel vision. Just noise and movement - flashes of vibrant colour. It ends, over and over again. And then it fades.Some get used, abused and discarded all the while being fed a rich diet of gold-flecked brownies. [1]Agencies regulate: If the face is the body, then the body is the mind, and the agent is your paramour.At best: Reminding them that they are part of the team and that the finished product is more than the sum of its parts - it can be art.At worst: Reminding them that they are walking coat-hangers. They are replaceable, flawed and cookie-cutter - acting as blank canvases, where photoshop will erase any sign of their self.Implying that they might get more work if they could somehow lose more wight or outright telling them that they need to lose weight - leading to obsessions with their body and eating disorders.When 19-year-old Swedish model Agnes Hedengård was told by her current agent that she was “too big” for the fashion industry, she was completely shocked. After all, her BMI was 17.5, not only under the fashion standard, but also considered medically underweight. [2][2][2][2]Not properly vetting the people who get to work with these young, exhausted, jet-lagged, sometimes lonely, somewhat impressionable and so, particularly vulnerable group of girls, and boys.Plying them with drugs - molding the muse (the fainting waif, heroin-chic). [3]All the stereotypes are true. They aren't even stereotypes—they're just true. My coworker just got back from the menswear shows in Milan and supposedly one of the big designers passed around a chalice of cocaine at an after-party… You can guess about the partying culture based on the overall vibes from the brand itself, you know? [4][4][4][4]Encouraging romantic, publicity and sexual affairs — for “exposure”.Not hearing them out - dismissing their concerns and problems.Fun fact: Models don’t own their photos. They can get sued for posting paparazzi photos of them on their social media. [5][5][5][5]Financial — The Nature of the BeastShe remembers being told that the rent was so high because the agency knew it would never "make the money back" from some of the other models living there.Only the top-models make a lot of money.They tend to have poor financial literacy - they are young, sometimes drop out of school, party, drugs etc.Instability: they live paycheck to paycheck, most of the jobs don’t pay well, or at all (editorials can be done for exposure).They sometimes need to borrow money in advance and many models end up in debt rather than earn money, but they don’t necessarily have to pay this back. [6]Making matters worse, many of the runway shows Fox appeared in paid only in free clothing. Even when jobs did pay, it took months for her to receive any money — and the paychecks were eaten away by commissions, fees and other expenses owed to her agency. This forced Fox to rely on cash advances from her agency (which typically charge fees of around 5%) to pay for food and other expenses. All of this left her even further in debt. [7][7][7][7]Object & SexualFormer Victoria’s Secret model Kylie Bisutti revealed that her agent told her at age 16 “All models have topless shots”. At that age, girls are so desperate to break into the business, they’ll do things they might be uncomfortable with in order to get a leg up. Especially if they’re being told it’s the “normal” practice by their agents.But the reality is that men and women in the industry are for the most part treated equally badly. We are products and we are sexualized. Photographers, casting directors, and even our own agents become our unsuspecting predators. [8][8][8][8]What looks good on camera, may not translate to real life - this can be particularly true for very skinny models who would look more healthy and feminine with more fat on them - they can lose their lustre.The models who get caught up in live fast-die young lifestyle can speed up their ageing and lose their looks, and thus their career.Flying internationally, going to castings, meeting potentially a new team or lone photographers at weird locations and odd times comes with certain risks.The higher-tier models may get work as escorts for very wealthy men. A few of them may even help procuring younger models…Prodded, primped, moved, positioned, touched… stroked — and worse?In the bigger cities, well-connected individuals networks that will alert to models who are short on cash/need a place…Terry Richardson, Jared Leto have both been accused of very, very disturbing things involving teenagers. Many times. [9][9][9][9]Many of these girls who are assaulted [as models] aren’t older than 15 years old,” she wrote in a Facebook post. “And I stand here to say how ashamed I am of myself for not having had the tools or the resources or guts to stop it…I wouldn’t have even called it a secret,” she said. “It was just sort of common hearsay that this list of photographers were pigs...I had to make the appointments with [these men]. It would make me gag, but I had to do my job or I’d be fired.” [10][10][10][10]Fame and GlamourYou become public property - strangers think it is okay to criticise, compare, dig, obsess, stalk, spread rumours about you. You lose your privacy. [11]You are in more danger. Predators may try to traffic you, or even murder you. [12][13]There is pressure to get touch-ups (plastic surgery e.g. fillers for cheek, chin, upper-eye lift, mild refining of nose etc.), especially for lingery models, as they are still very skinny (camera add pounds), and not many manage to keep their breasts, or shape.Models have also been called out for photoshopping their pics, in some cases to make themselves look even skinnier.THE WINNER:Some of these models may experience special treatment and be shielded from the abuse - I mean it would be terrible if the models who raise to the top started speaking about the abuse they suffered! Such models may include Adriana Lima, Emily Didonato and Christy Turlington. Unfortunately, these models help create the dangerous illusion, perhaps unaware, that the profession and that certain individuals in the industry are safer than they are and that it is industry standard! [14]The secrets of Rocha’s success, and that of the dozens of girls who have come before her, have much less to do with Rocha the person (or the body) than with the social context of an unstable market. There is very little intrinsic value in Rocha’s physique that would set her apart from any number of other similarly built teens. Rather, the social processes that bequeathed cultural value on Rocha reveal how market actors, in the face of uncertainty, make decisions by thinking collectively…Today, this casting director still cannot see what it is about Rocha that makes her a winner. “But now,” he explained, “it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what I think now. Like she is, you know, it right now.” As in the fable of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” even if one does not believe in the legitimacy of a social order, one obeys its conventions due to the belief or calculated guess that other people find the social order legitimate and will obey. [15][15][15][15]The advent of social media and its impact on the industry and the end of the super-model eraNyane - 1.2M foll., wig business with photographer partner; Ambar Driscoll - 186.6K foll. gf of Caspar Lee a famous YT personality, half-Indian model; Elisabetta Soskic - 21.5K foll., Serbian model and dancer, only 55 photos on her feed as of now.Nataniele Ribeiro, a Brazillian model who fell under my radar almost a decade ago, who was seen as Adriana Limas’ potential successor - has all of 500 followers, as of now. Nataniele Ribeiro (@nanycribeiro) • Instagram photos and videosNepotism, or shortcut through being on/growing up on reality TV: The Hadid sisters, the Delevingne sisters, the Kardashians/Jenners, Hailey Rhode Bieber (5″7), Sofia Richie (5″5), Lilly Rose-Depp (5″3) and Kaia Gerber.Co-occurrence? These girls have been thought as having diluted the prestige of the supermodel title. Some models resent them as they are the top of the food-chain. Some think that they simply lack the charisma, confidence and presence of the original supermodels, such as Linda Evangelista and Gia Carangi.Models who hope to make it big can enter the fashion industry through social media, that is, if they have a big enough, engaged following and a marketable brand that the agency is willing to attach its name to.This means more competition for agency models.Models are encouraged by agencies to manage their social media presence and gain a large amount of followers, which may be less true for the big agencies. Models with more followers may have an edge when it comes to getting work.Unfortunately, all that glitters is not gold. [16][16][16][16]A different take: User-10262392740491695208's answer to What is a model's life like?Footnotes[1] Supermodel Karen Mulder arrested for threatening to attack plastic surgeon [2] Victoria’s Secret Angels Come Forward To Expose Shameful Modeling Industry Secrets[2] Victoria’s Secret Angels Come Forward To Expose Shameful Modeling Industry Secrets[2] Victoria’s Secret Angels Come Forward To Expose Shameful Modeling Industry Secrets[2] Victoria’s Secret Angels Come Forward To Expose Shameful Modeling Industry Secrets[3] 'Heroin chic’ and the tangled legacy of photographer Davide Sorrenti[4] https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/8gdyxp/selling-drugs-during-fashion-week-456[4] https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/8gdyxp/selling-drugs-during-fashion-week-456[4] https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/8gdyxp/selling-drugs-during-fashion-week-456[4] https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/8gdyxp/selling-drugs-during-fashion-week-456[5] The copyright lawsuit accusing Gigi Hadid of posting a paparazzi photo she didn't have the rights to has been thrown out[5] The copyright lawsuit accusing Gigi Hadid of posting a paparazzi photo she didn't have the rights to has been thrown out[5] The copyright lawsuit accusing Gigi Hadid of posting a paparazzi photo she didn't have the rights to has been thrown out[5] The copyright lawsuit accusing Gigi Hadid of posting a paparazzi photo she didn't have the rights to has been thrown out[6] The fashion models struggling with a life of debt[7] The 'model apartment' trap[7] The 'model apartment' trap[7] The 'model apartment' trap[7] The 'model apartment' trap[8] Why Modeling Agencies Suck: 11 Models Reveal Why Having An Agent Is So Overrated – The H Hub[8] Why Modeling Agencies Suck: 11 Models Reveal Why Having An Agent Is So Overrated – The H Hub[8] Why Modeling Agencies Suck: 11 Models Reveal Why Having An Agent Is So Overrated – The H Hub[8] Why Modeling Agencies Suck: 11 Models Reveal Why Having An Agent Is So Overrated – The H Hub[9] Another Woman Has Accused Terry Richardson Accused of Assault[9] Another Woman Has Accused Terry Richardson Accused of Assault[9] Another Woman Has Accused Terry Richardson Accused of Assault[9] Another Woman Has Accused Terry Richardson Accused of Assault[10] Modeling Agencies Enabled Sexual Predators For Years, Former Agent Says[10] Modeling Agencies Enabled Sexual Predators For Years, Former Agent Says[10] Modeling Agencies Enabled Sexual Predators For Years, Former Agent Says[10] Modeling Agencies Enabled Sexual Predators For Years, Former Agent Says[11] Why does Kylie Jenner look a decade older on her 22nd birthday?[12] https://www.quora.com/share/What-has-been-the-craziest-weirdest-and-or-most-disgusting-thing-you-have-ever-either-done-yourself-or-watched-someone-do-to-themselves-or-to-someone-else-9?ch=10&share=d4466b40&srid=9KmJ[13] Why Are Gruesome Photos of a Murdered 17-Year-Old Girl Still All Over Instagram?[14] Christy Turlington: fashion industry is 'surrounded by predators' [15] The last word: What makes supermodel Coco Rocha hot?[15] The last word: What makes supermodel Coco Rocha hot?[15] The last word: What makes supermodel Coco Rocha hot?[15] The last word: What makes supermodel Coco Rocha hot?[16] Ashley Mears' "Pricing Beauty": What a sociologist learned by moonlighting as a fashion model.[16] Ashley Mears' "Pricing Beauty": What a sociologist learned by moonlighting as a fashion model.[16] Ashley Mears' "Pricing Beauty": What a sociologist learned by moonlighting as a fashion model.[16] Ashley Mears' "Pricing Beauty": What a sociologist learned by moonlighting as a fashion model.