I don’t know about videos but having a look at the OSI model is a good way to start. It covers the abstract framework for packetizing data including things like the distinction between hardware and software, envelope, encryption, application layer stuff, the whole shebang. The cool thing is by going hardware, network, application you can see where responsibility are and it helps you understand where things can go wrong.

If you are interested there are plenty of CCNA style courses available on the internet, licit and otherwise, and they go into more depth, and the same applies to RHCE/RHCSA material. The training for certifications like that covers what you want to know but also puts it in context, and again licit and otherwise sources are available.

All models are approximations of reality, thus they are ideas humans make in the context of their social situation. Norms and attitudes impact what we research, how we interpret data, and what we end up believing.

While the aim of science is to get closer to the truth the end result is going to approach but never reach perfect accuracy. With gender we see the social norms all through the expression of gender in different ages, generations, socioeconomic statuses, cultures, and countries. With sex we see a flattening of what is present into a strict binary with exceptions rather than what is actually present, a range of different karyotypes, sensitivities to hormones, levels of hormone production, interactions in regulatory genes, and differing morphologies. Gender is a diverse spectrum, but so is sex, and the reason we teach the XX XY version is the same as how we teach mathematic ideas. Basic stuff first, then expanding on that idea, then going further until we have the capacity to really understand the basics, like the multiple page proof that 1+1=2. Yes, basic biology says male and female, but intermediate talks about the diverse presentations of sex.

If everyone has the same amount of starting capital it is a fair game assuming both can opt out at any time.

That said, the house appears to not be able to opt out (they definitely can, you just don’t think about that part), and the house has more capital. For them each time someone plays a round there are only 3 possible outcomes. Half are the player loses, then a quarter are the player wins and plays another round, and lastly a quarter are the player wins and ends the game. The only case where the player wins is option 3, in all other cases, so 75%, the house wins because the next round has another chance to make the player lose directly at a 50/50 chance or play another round.

OK, so good, a clear starting point.

First, adding muscle is a fantastic way to go. Muscle burns energy and new muscle is not insulin resistant, so it lowers your overall insulin resistance. This is key to liberating fat and burning it for energy.

The other big key is diet. Your current diet is overwhelming your body’s ability to burn without storing as fat. This means you are gaining body fat and this will get worse over time. Gaining muscle can help a fair bit but your existing muscle tissue along with other things like fat cells and other organs are all at the point of damage from high sugar levels in your diet. The fact that you can make yourself go to the gym is great, it means you have caught this before it has gotten too bad.

So to make progress on your diet you probably need to do a couple of things. First is check for other symptoms like swelling around the jawline, fat build up over the spine between your shoulders, rash and skin discolouration, pale gums and lips, and any sort of weakness in nails and hair. These are all potential indicators of an acute deficiency and may need medical support. That said, all of these are generally helped by dietary work, so if nothing massive is presenting like a goiter or anaemic gums you should probably just move forward with diet and reevaluate later.

So what to eat. The biggest problem seems to be sugar, followed by the sugar/fat/salt hyper palatable mix, then hyper processed, and lastly problematic plants. If you eat meat, which I would strongly recommend, then paring everything down to very simple meals is the best option. A kilogram of meat per day is a reasonable base for basically everyone. If you start there and can make it a week without anything else you will have a good starting point for completing an exclusion diet. If you can’t jump directly to that then dropping out the worst items is a good step.

Dropping the worst means getting rid of the most packaged and insane foods, like cakes that last 6 months on the shelf or items with ingredients lists longer than The Art of War. If you keep eating sugars but they are in simple forms, for example honey or while fruit, you will avoid most of the worst stuff. It would also be good to learn more about cooking meat properly, so learn how to fry steak, cook chicken wings, and maybe roast a leg of pork. Learn to make basic stuff that tastes good and you will find reducing other crap easier.

Ultimately trying to hit numbers of grams of fat, protein, and carbs is a losing game. You don’t know all the internal systems you have and how they allocate energy, but you do have a handy system they operate with, hunger. We should fix your hunger to make it work properly and that is what the above is for. You have simple foods, your body learns what they provide, your hunger becomes more accurate for what you need.

Once your hunger works properly you will do something like work out and you will feel more hungry in the day or two following it. Then chasing numbers won’t be needed at all and you can relax.

You’ll get a lot of contradictory answers with this question because of two major issues.

1. There is more than one way to make your scale number go down.

2. Your scale number going down can be for multiple reasons.

For example, dropping a bunch of body fat is a way of posing weight, but it does not look any different on the scale than losing muscle mass or losing a leg. You can have more healthy recomposition where you drop a bunch of fat slowly over time and gain some muscle but overall lose absolutely no weight on the scale, and you can also gain weight without changing fat but be in a better position.

So what would you aim for? It depends on your goals. Do you want to be jacked? Maybe you have early signs of type 2 diabetes and want to stop it there. Or maybe you just really want to get rid of your skin issues like acne and dermititis.

Nobody benefits from being insulin resistant. That is the state that pushes you towards weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, and many other issues including dementia. Fixing that is a central goal for a lot of people and it actually helps with most other health related goals. If I were starting somewhere that is where I would probably try to start.

That said, if you have very little muscle that may be better to work on.

Can you give more detail about your goals?

First, start big. Get the basic shapes right with large lettering. Ideally you would have something you are comparing to like a stencil or grey printout so you can see the difference between your writing and the target.

After you have the shape fairly good large you can shrink it down. You can take your time getting to that and just make a little progress at a time.

If you find it impossible to shed your current handwriting consider using grid paper to force spacing and maybe try your non-dominant hand.

UBI will cycle in the bottom of the economy.

When you give a rich person more money they buy assets and increase their wealth, it does not impact their spending activity and has no measurable impact on economic activity.

When you give a middle income person more money they buy something new or pay down debts. Buying something new stimulates economic activity, but paying down debts is really just another wealth transfer to the banks which are owned by rich people.

When you give money to low income people they spend it. They have unmet needs and always have something they can spend that money on. That money then generates economic activity.

Increasing economic activity is what all of the interest rate and inflation talk is about. If you get people spending money that generates activity which increases wages, increases income, and decreases wealth inequality.

A good example is during the GFC the Australian government gave low income people $750AUD, about $350USD. The prime minister asked people to spend this money rather than save it. People bought a bunch of things, in the people I knew it was mostly TVs and new clothes, things you can put off for ages but benefit from whenever you buy them. All of this purchasing stimulated the economy, leading to Australia being less impacted than almost any other G7 nation. We recovered very quickly and boomed from there.

If you want a more long term example look at any welfare. If you have extremely poor people they just die. They are underfed, have weak immune systems, and they face imminent death. They can’t access housing so they end up on the street. They have tonnes of inteactions with police and end up in the criminal justice system. They end up having their lives ruined and being purely a drain economically. They suffer.

If you give them enough money to have housing and food they are not going to be as costly to manage. They won’t require policing, they won’t get sick as often, and they will suffer less. Will this increase the competition for the lowest cost housing? Yes, but the answer to that is to build more housing. Even with the impact to housing cost this will not result in 100% of that payment going to landlords. People don’t pay their whole income for rent, they will buy food and other needs first, so if they are faced with too high a rent cost they will remain unhoused but at least tbey will eat.

I have some experience with mental health in Australia and it is pretty dire honestly. There is a constant sense that the staff are concerned first with making sure you don’t hurt yourself because that would be a breach of their duty of care. This unfortunaty made much of the interaction between staff and patients adversarial.

I am currently entering the individual suppory industry and we have a concept called dignity of risk. You have to remember that people are entitled to take risks that they consider worthwhile regardless of what you think. This means if someone wants to smoke weed that is their choice, I can’t stop them. If they want to drink that is their choice and I have to respect that. This is because they are their own people and have their own autonomy.

Yes, correct, so a smaller portion is fat loss but not the full 5.7kg average. I should have been clearer, they did lose a meaningful amount of weight and it does seem to be beneficial, but it is not 5.7kg of fat loss per person on average, it is a loss of 5.7kg average mass with a portion of that being actual body fat.

You will drop a bunch of water at the start if you are eating carbs beforehand because of the water holding the glycogen in your muscles. As you use the glycogen the water holding it also goes, so it isn’t fat loss, just water weight.

Ok, so there are a few problems with this study which make it unfit to rely on.

First, this is observational, not an intervention. Everyone who has kimchi knows they are doing so and has chosen to do so on their own. The direction if causation cannot be established in this case because of this study design.

Second, this relies on food surveys. These are notoriously unreliable for getting true data about what a person has consumed anything more than a day ago. People really do have trouble remembering exactly what they ate yesterday unless they eat a regimented diet and even those people are bad at remembering deviations like incomplete meals or serving a larger size.

Third, what is a serving size? Eating 1-2 serves of kimchi means something very different if it is a 20g or 60g serve.

Fourth, was this the study question at the outset? Were they testing the hypothesis that kimchi consumption is directly tied to waist circumference? Not as far as the study seems to suggest. It seems like the participants did their food surveys and he researchers went through and found anything that stuck out in the data. This is basically a form of p hacking and is a major red flag.

Honestly, this study is trash and should be ignored. They have proven nothing, made no progress for a scientific understanding of diet, and wasted everyone’s time.

Yes, it is possible, though fairly prohibitive. You can get modules for connecting a Sim card to your laptop to make and receive calls and SMS, so all the third party authentication messages and calls can be done. Apps can often be run through an emulation layer for Android, not so much for iOS, but yeah, it can mostly be done.

That said, there are devices like the Pinephone which run a mainline Linux distribution like Arch or Alpine and can also do calls, SMS, and if you are brave use some android apps. If you can use a Pinephone for it then you can use another Linux laptop with a phone module to handle everything else.

I am much more worried about things like banking now. A bank that allows use of an app on your phone with NFC is great but when they take away using anything else I would become a little more worried. If they can keep an option open, say having standard cards along side phone NFC, then the lock in is much less profound. If we get to a point where they cannot operate without Google or Apple giving the go ahead then they cannot move away if things get bad, so those monopolistic companies can extract more value from those banks and that gets passed down. This applies to tonnes of other services like taxis, food delivery, booking doctors appointments, and so on.

Option 1, the vast majority of STI transmission is between m/f sexual partners.

Option 2, plenty of m/f couples have anal sex so it is either immoral for both or for neither.

Option 3, not all gay couples have anal sex, plenty just do oral and some don’t even have sex, plenty of ace people out there.

Option 4, condoms work well and really do prevent the spread of STIs.

Option 5, what about lesbian sex? They are also homosexual but don’t have penises, so is anal sex not an option for them?

Option 6, what right do we have to judge other people’s sexual preferences and activities? You are allowed to drink, smoke, and eat unhealthy foods, not to mention people refusing the vaccines for covid and influenza, so even with things that kill a lot of people every year we let you do it, so what makes anal sex for men different?

Option 7, what about pegging? Can anal in an m/f relationship involve penetration of the male? Is that the same or different to the gay men situation?

And lastly, option 8, if they get to say gay anal sex is immoral then what stops gay men from saying exercising power over a community based on unsupported claims is immoral? If their specific religion is correct then all others must be someone scamming or lying, so that must be immoral, right? If not, how and why?

If you flip the mouse over you should see a circular piece of plastic. Rotate this and it should be able to pop out, at which point the ball will also fall out. Inside you will see a pair of rollers and a wheel, all of which may have gunk on them. Clean off the gunk and make sure they spin properly. Replace the ball, the circular plastic, and then rotate the plastic to lock the mechanism.

Before the more modern definition took hold propaganda was not a term that held any real negative connotations. It was really just like marketing or evangelising, a behavior or product which uses various methods to change opinions. The big problem is when you have political or corporate powers using these tools to change opinion about something in a way that degrades democracy or causes harm.

For example, oil companies stand to benefit from people being uncertain about the science, so when they engage in propaganda they are trying to inject doubt where there is none and to do so in a way that will benefit them in the short term. This will cause massive harm in the future, potentially leading to a significant number of wars and a staggerig death toll, but that is not part of their consideration.

Another example is alt med. When someone claims that their pill can make your brain work better and will also boost your sexual performance all while protecting you from the dangers they just told you about they obviously stand to benefit from you believing them. They create the need and then offer the solution. Alex Jones is a good example of this. He tells you that the global elite are planning nuclear war, then in the next ad break tells you about iodine for radiation exposure.

So why is propaganda frowned on? It is more like propaganda is the label we give to marketing or evangelising that we consider worthy of frowning. Someone in another countries may sort different things into evangelising, marketing, and propaganda categories but they will do so based on their understanding of the world and you will likely agree with most of their sorting. Almost everyone thinks that Nazis are bad and put their marketing in the propaganda bucket.

Cool, fair enough, I do have a little trouble with spelling and that is fine. Of course it could be software, learning difficulties, or just a bad day, but feel free to discard all the words I spelled correctly. Also, if you are in the US including the full stop in your quotation is typical but in the rest of the world you would keep the punctuation outside the quotes unless it is what you are quoting, otherwise the sentence doesn’t have its own full stop.

I see what you are saying but I disagree. The changes that we would consider important for aspartame should happen over a reasonable period of time. If it takes 100 years to have an impact then we probably don’t care because most people won’t live that long. What we care about is whether it has an impact over meaningful lengths of time in a human life, say over a decade or two.

If I have tobacco every day for a year will I have cancer? Unlikely. But if I give a large number of people who are well randomised tobacco or tobacco substitute I will see changes in their outcomes in a short time, even as little as a year.

So for aspartame, we already know it is not a massive signal. If it were then people who find the taste acrid would be better off than those who do not. But is there a possible issue there? Sure, it is possible, but it will very likely be a mild issue over a long time at a high dose, not at small doses over a short time, so this study design is not fit for purpose and it should be ignored.

Mice lie, monkeys exaggurate.

This is a study on a small number of mice using a measure of anxiety which does not directly map to humans. Using mice for a study like this is fine for a pilot study but this has not clinical significance and can be safely ignored by the scientific press as well as the public. When we see a long term study which is double blinded in humans with reasonable doses, good controls, and hopefully some sort of mechanism of action then we can pay attention. Until then, aspartame has been linked to everything under the sun and yet nothing has been shown to be meaningful yet. It is one of the most well studied substances in the human diet and it seems to be at the very least mostly fine. Worry about lead in your water before you worry about this.

It looks like it is downsampling the video or streaming after converting to another codec. Some codecs are fine for decoding on the server but the app may not support them so the server converts them. Some files are of higher quality than what the server is configured to deliver so it downsamples to stream it.

Check the configuration and look for anything to do with codecs, hardware decoding, streaming quality, and so on. It may also be on the app, so if you can access a different interface then test that to narrow down the issue.

This guy is a bit of a quack TBH. He is a doctor, but of what? Medicine? That is what you would assume from his presentation, but no, he is not a medical doctor. He has also misrepresented data in the past and has a definite pattern of carefully selecting what he presents to support an antivax narrative.

His views before the pandemic were extremely low and his videos mainly focussed on educational material for nurses. Since the pandemic he has gone full antivax and boom, absolutely massive channel growth and monetization. He has a strong financial incentive to keep making videos whether or not there is any actual problem.