It'd be great if they'd stop changing the UI, though. I was in the middle of an incident and couldn't figure out how to configure one of our killswitch flags.
Conventional wisdom says leg extensions are bad for your knees but I think the science is shaky at best. I used to believe this also until I tore my ACL about 6 months ago (I'm currently 3 months post-reconstruction).
For a long time physical therapists wouldn't recommend knee extensions for ACL reconstruction rehab due to forces through the graft, but that has changed recently. My PT recommends them to me.
TLDR:
1.Squats place a similar force through your knee, except the force peaks when your knee is bent rather than when it's straight (as in leg extensions)
2.Leg extensions are the only reliable way to rebuild quad strength post surgery, and quad strength is by far the strongest predictor of reinjury to the ACL.
I believe my lack of quad-specific training contributed to my initial injury. I did tons of squats and deads and my hamstrings/glutes were strong, but I think my quads were behind. I had trouble slowing down from a sprint during soccer/walking down stairs prior to my injury, and I think those were warning signs
I got into knot tying over the pandemic and it's pretty great stuff to know! Being able to tie down loads, moor a boat, hang a hammock, etc, using regular ass rope is a good skill to have!
My list of recommended knots:
1. End of line fixed loop: bowline (or double bowline for extra security).
2. Mid-line loop: butterfly.
3. Tying a down a load: truckers hitch, using a butterfly for the loop
4. Basic hitch: Buntline (or slipped buntline)
5: Hitch under tension: backhanded hitch
6: tying two ropes together: butterfly bend, or double sheet bend for different sized ropes
Cool to know but kind of impractical:
-tumble hitch (exploding hitch)
-constrictor knot
-blakes hitch
It's been a while since I've done any stats but I'm coming up with roughly the same number they are (~88.5). I'm trying to find the percentage chance for which the expected value of such a bet is 0. Or are you taking issue with the wording of "chance that Trump would win"?
>In the study, which was carried out in April and May when Danish authorities did not recommend wearing face masks, 6,024 adults were divided into two groups, one wearing face masks and one control group.
>After one month, 1.8% of the people wearing masks had been infected, while 2.1% of the people in the control group had tested positive, Copenhagen University Hospital said in a press release.
>The study does not confirm the expected halving of the risk of infection for people wearing face masks
>Participants reported their own test results; mask use was not independently verified, and users may not have worn them correctly.
So the control group had no masks, and the mask group were only told to wear a mask, and we have no data for how often they wore it. If their behavior is anything like what I'm seeing in the U.S., they're wearing it into the grocery store and going and seeing friends normally without a mask. The fact the study still produced a (likely statistically insignificant) 15% reduction in risk (1.8/2.1) is surprising under these circumstances.
That's a good point! The only reason I'm comfortable self-experimenting on this one is that 1) there's already evidence that frequent blood donors outlive non-donors (obviously that's an observational study, but still) and 2) there's actually already a clinical use for plasma replacement therapy in Alzheimer's that's roughly identical to the one done in the study.
In addition - they theorize that it's a buildup of bad elements in the blood that causes some runaway process that contributes to aging, so it might follow that less extreme interventions (~15% removal of blood plasma, like plasma donation, which takes around 800 ml out of the ~5500 ml of plasma in your body) done more frequently might provide the same effect.
I'm not sure! Straight up blood donation takes away some stuff that takes a while to regenerate, so you're not allowed to donate more often than once every 8 weeks. By contrast, you can donate plasma twice a week in the US (although if I remember correctly, other countries limit you to once every two weeks).
In other words, what they take out of you during blood donations is a lot more...precious.
I'm O- though so I don't know if they'll let me donate plasma (they want my blood!). I was thinking of alternating plasma and blood in order to get a little bit of both if I can.
Exactly. In fact, the authors note that the effect on their own defined markers of aging was more significant when using saline + albumin than when using young blood.
>In our paper, we looked at the hippocampal neurogenesis, which is the formation of new neurons in the area of the brain that is responsible for learning and memory. We saw an eightfold increase in all the animals after neutral blood exchange, which is much higher than anything else that was observed either by heterochronic parabiosis or reported by young blood infusion. In old mice transfused with 50% young blood, we did not see an improvement in neurogenesis, which, again, puts a question mark on potency of young blood in old mammals. Does young blood by itself work as a medicine or not? If you dilute old blood by 50%, in neutral age blood exchange – with albumin-supplemented saline, there is quickly better neurogenesis.
I'm 29 years old and I've started donating blood regularly in an effort to achieve the same effect. Ideally you'd donate plasma, but there is an important difference between the treatment in the study and donating plasma: in the study, they replace the plasma with saline and albumin. Donating plasma does not replenish your albumin. Albumin is regenerated relatively quickly, however.
One of these groups is capable of violating our right to free speech, our right to assemble, and our right to a trial by jury. The other is not.
No one is condoning looting - in fact, it's just as frustrating for me in that it's distracting from the message. But let's not forget what the (much, much) bigger problem is. I also believe that various bad-faith actors (police, conservatives) are using the looting to distract from the fact that the police have systematically deprived us of our rights with no recourse.
I agree that looting/destroying property is bad (obviously...), but I disagree that it's a problem that's even within an order of magnitude of the behavior I've seen out of the police. Property can be replaced. It's called insurance.
However...our right to not be inflicted with cruel and unusual punishment, our right to assemble, and our right to freedom of speech is in grave danger here. That's why I can't stand that everyone is focused on the looters.
Speaking of the constitution, whered the 2nd amendment people go? I thought I'd have some allies in them.............