#Destop | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

exalinformation · 2 years

Text

EXCEL TO TALLY Top Features of Fast In Flow- Excel to Tally Software

Simple Installation and Instant Start

Setting up and connecting our software to Tally takes minimal time. Without using TDL or XML, exporting to Tally only requires one click.

Missing Ledger Detection

whenever data is exported from Excel to Tally. First, software locates lost ledgers. Missing Ledgers can be generated with a single click.

A sheet map

You may map your purchase, sales, and GST ledgers according to the tax rate and supply location. The name of the purchase/sale ledger does not need to be supplied for each voucher after the mapping is finished.

brand-new technology

Our product was created using the most contemporary technology, which works with any computer hardware and a number of third-party software formats.

Excel To Tally Software #1

Our product is readily available for free download, has little setup time, is easy to use, and includes comprehensive technical support. Additionally, we promise complete accuracy and client pleasure.

Using Party, Auto Fetch GSTIN

Party names from Tally can be automatically imported using this programme based on their GSTIN and vice versa.

Excel's built-in tools and utilities

You can use all of Excel's built-in functions, including copy and paste, drag and drop, search and replace, filter and sort, usage of formulas, and more because our programme was totally developed in Excel.

Online assistance

Our devoted customer support team quickly addresses your inquiries and resolves issues via remote desktop and other online assistance options.

Fastest Import - No Rivalry

Our programme makes it easy to import data from Excel to Tally with just two clicks! After choosing your file, use our software to map it so that it displays all of your data. After confirming your data, click to import it into Tally.

Safe Financial Information

No upload or download to a server is necessary

Get FREE Demo of Excel to Tally software

#Tally #software #destop #GSTIN #gst invoice #gst investigation

0 notes

yuoic · 2 years

Note

are you a radfem? curious to your opinions on transphobia in the feminist movement

Warning: this will be really, REALLY long. I apologize for this. It's just that I honestly needed to avoid leaving a single aspect uncovered (I'm not a fan of self-diagnosing but I strongly believe this could be considered a symptom of some disorder, lol).

>"A-set" (comprised of one or more individuals) has an essential need, further called "A". >"B-set" (comprised of one or more individuals) has an essential need, further called "B". >If "A" comes to be, "B" can not be; if "B" comes to be, "A" can not be. >"A" and "B" cannot happen at the same time; therefore, "A" and "B" are mutually exclusive.

Example. Let "A"="cis-women-only spaces" and "B"="trans-women-inclusive spaces currently/previously considered exclusive for cis-women".

>"A" is perceived as a violation to what is essential to "B-set". >Essential = absolutely necessary, extremely important >If "A" comes to be, "B-set" will feel invalid, threatened, disdained, aggressed. >"B-set" will look for ways to overthrow "A" as the norm, then proceed to establish "B" as the norm instead. >Norm = something that is usual, typical, or standard. >"B-set" perceives "A-set" as a contributing factor to the violation of "B". >"A-set" perceives "B-set" as a contributing factor to the violation of "A". >It is possible that either "A" or "B" are enforced as the norm. >If there is no "A-set" or if there is no "B-set", the opposite set will therefore obtain the certainty that their corresponding essential need will be less threatened or completely cease to be it. >(some) Ways to dissolve an opposing set: invalidate it, threaten it, disdain it, aggress it.

Example. Let the norm be "A"="redefinition of what being a woman means in order to include a wider population to fit into it"; then "B-set" will seek to invalidate, threaten, disdain and aggravate "A-set".

>The more an authority fails to comply with either set demands and needs, the less such authority will be trusted and resorted to. >Radical = [relating to or] affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough. >Thorough = complete with regard to every detail; not superficial or parcial. >Since "A-set" and "B-set" won't recede nor dissolve, and since both sets feel unprotected by an authority, both sets will likely become driven to resort to radical behaviour against the corresponding opposing set. >Dignity = the state or quality of being worthy of honor and respect. >An individual's life and their dignity are fundamental to their nature. >The most effective way to dissolve a set of individuals or one individual once and for all is to deprive them of their life. >The more threatened of (negatively) affected the set feels, and the more essential the violated need, the stronger the impulse to resort to radical behavior. >Since murder brings considerable (negative) consequences for the perpetrators, the second best option is to devoid the opposing set of their dignity. >Genotype = the genetic constitution of an individual organism.

Example(s). Let "A1"="acceptance that only the female sex is referred to as girls/women", "A2"="acceptance of the inherently evil nature of all men as a fact", "A3"="public proposal to eliminate all men from society, regardless of the means taken, as part of the right of freedom of speech", "A4"="purposely ignoring someone's requests to be referred to as in a specific way, fully aware that nothing will impede it", "A5"="purposely ignoring physiological differences between the sexes to include a wider population into a certain category specifically designed to sort individuals based on their capabilities/characteristics", "A6"="an individual or set of individuals of a certain genotype are applauded for displaying an array of behaviours, habits and preferences, while another genotype is punished for displaying the exact same things"; then "B-set" will spread death threats, degrading messages and aggressive behaviour towards "A-set", since not all of the individuals comprising "B-set" are willing to face the consequences of depriving someone of life.

Q: Am I a radical feminist? R: I hope I never find myself in a scenario such that I will be forced to engage in radical behaviour; and whatever radical behaviour I partake in, will definitely not consist on vague threats, weeks-long social media debates with disagreeing strangers, or disdainful insults towards any of them.

>Phobia = an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. >Fear = an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat. >Fear/aversion can be acquired because either set has been fed lies (either because their perception is malfunctioning or because they were systematically indoctrinated) >Fear/aversion can be acquired because of negative experiences with what is fear in the first place. >Fear/aversion becomes extreme under the same two previously provided scenarios. >Not every fear/aversion will be irrational. >Not everyone will feel the same as the next person. >Not everyone will consider the same situation as harmful as the next person will. >Not everyone will have the same criteria to deem something harmful. >Not everyone will consider one or more thing as being transphobic.

Q: Is it wrong to give in to phobias and its projection onto people's views, opinions and behaviour? R: Of course - as long as they're irrational, NOT born out of a traumatic experience as extreme as the fear/aversion that resulted from it; because then the questions should be "When are you available to elaborate on what you consider an effective way to repair the damage done and to prevent the traumatic experiences and the dangers that cause irrational and/or extreme fear/aversion towards an individual or a set of individuals?" and "May I please elaborate with you on what I consider an effective way to repair the damage done and to prevent the traumatic experiences and the dangers that cause irrational and/or extreme fear/aversion towards an individual or set of individuals?"

Moreover, in hopes that the rest of my views are implicitly read between these lines:

>"A-set" and "B-set" are subject to include individuals who are willing to take any means to (negatively) affect the quality of life of themselves and that of people around them, specially when they feel threatened and/or are devoid of the ability to accurately tell whether they're actually being harmed or not. >People willing to (negatively) affect the quality of life of those around them, even if they know they're not being threatened and/or harmed, could very well partake in comprising any one set to achieve their own ends and their utmost satisfaction. >It is because of those people that both sets are and will always be unwilling to recede from their stance. >Once either set has established what is considered the norm, they will be granted with many benefits and it's implications. >While not every individual of either set is ill-willed and/or lacks the ability to accurately tell whether they're being fundamentally challenged and therefore when or how to proceed, the possibility of at least one such opposing member being benefited from becoming the norm represents a harmful risk. >Neither set is willing to take not even the faintest risk of being (negatively) affected.

>One of the hardest things human kind has always remarkably failed to achieve is effective, peaceful communication, let alone getting to an agreement. >People in power benefit from this, since what is at stake evoques a very strong, very wide array of powerful emotions in every individual or set of individuals involved, thus becoming easy to exploit. >After weighing their chances, they'll know which group they should better appeal to and which group they should emotionally "milk"- at any cost -in favour of keeping on fueling the drives and opinions of the others. Like breeding mice to feed a pet snake. >Better supporters = better benefits. >Purposely not saying "more supporters" because a fistful of powerful people can easily establish whatever norm they deem convenient, not needing a single other individual but themselves to impose their will upon entire countries and countless industries. >People in power devote oceans of resources to study our most fundamental nature and then use every ounce of knowledge to attain the best way to manipulate us (non-influential people) into doing their biding. >People in power already know that an army of easily triggered, upset, out-of-control, hypersensitive, undisciplined, easily aroused, indulgent, indolent, unfocused, fragile, explosive, ignorant, lazy, hungry, resource-limited, incompetent individuals are the fittest sort of people to control and manipulate at will. >People in power will do everything- and I mean EVERYTHING, at any cost -to make that possible and to perpetuate it. >That way, there won't be a single individual left who is willing and fit to engage in a respectful agreement with a counterpart, thus allowing people in power the ability to keep on avoiding our attention, granting them impunity since everybody's too busy pointing fingers at each other, avid to get the other extinct, gifting these people in power even more material to discover better ways to use us and then dispose of us.

Mad love to every single one of "you", who are not so different from "us".

#thank you for your patience anon #i finished homework yesterday then went to churc and then to watch the new halloween movie #and then i sort of scketched this response on my phone and was finally able to reply to you from the destop site #thank you once again for your interest #i appreciate it

3 notes · View notes