Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Excellent demonstration of the difference between a low & high take off rectal prolapse using a jacket sleeve & explaining when a Delormes won't work! Karen Telford Carolynne Vaizey Dorin Ziyaie Shahab Siddiqi Andy Williams Julie Cornish ⏩

@ACPGBI

12,206 subscribers

15,228 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren •via X (Twitter)

Gesundheit & Wellness

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

3 Kommentare

Profilbild von ACPGBI-Education&Training

ACPGBI-Education&Trainingvor 3 Jahren

@TelfordKaren999 @shahabsiddiqi @jules_cornish Link to ACC2023 programme and registration: Do you know the difference between a low and a high take off rectal prolapse?

Profilbild von Imran Raza

Imran Razavor 3 Jahren

@TelfordKaren999 @shahabsiddiqi @jules_cornish This is the genius of Andy Williams. Had the privilege to learn from him as one of his fellows.

Profilbild von Michael Thornton

Michael Thorntonvor 3 Jahren

@TelfordKaren999 @shahabsiddiqi @jules_cornish ☝️If you want to see more of this type of quality education, join this years #ACC2023 @ACPGBI_EduTrain @ACPGBI Great value and it’s not too late to sign up.

Ähnliche Videos

Here we have another EXCELLENT example of Low to High Cable Flys Awesome execution here by Matty & notice: He is not using much weight This isn’t because he’s weak…it’s b/c you do not NEED much weight This exercise, like many great ones when performed properly, is a HUMBLER

Here we have another EXCELLENT example of Low to High Cable Flys Awesome execution here by Matty & notice: He is not using much weight This isn’t because he’s weak…it’s b/c you do not NEED much weight This exercise, like many great ones when performed properly, is a HUMBLER

Dean Turner

75,793 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

DB Press Man Release Drill - Occasionally, safeties will press, so they need to work man coverage releases - In the drill, the receiver has a five-yard window to release - They need to stay between the two lines and work to stack - If the DB can widen them outside, they have done their job - WKU likes to be a yard off the ball when they're working press - In press coverage, they think of a basketball analogy of playing one-on-one - Force the receiver to "take a jump shot" and not get dunked on Andy LaRussa, Asst Head Coach, Western Kentucky Andy LaRussa #GlazierClinics

DB Press Man Release Drill - Occasionally, safeties will press, so they need to work man coverage releases - In the drill, the receiver has a five-yard window to release - They need to stay between the two lines and work to stack - If the DB can widen them outside, they have done their job - WKU likes to be a yard off the ball when they're working press - In press coverage, they think of a basketball analogy of playing one-on-one - Force the receiver to "take a jump shot" and not get dunked on Andy LaRussa, Asst Head Coach, Western Kentucky Andy LaRussa #GlazierClinics

Glazier Clinics

11,685 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Self Toss short-hop feeds drill. 1 hop and 2 hop variations. Ball hit at you, declared backhands and glove side picks. A player can get a lot of reps in a very small space. Keys: in order to be on time to the short hop, the toss can’t be too far out front, too low or too fast. You have to start low, play low and move low (with precision feet). Why? Everything happens really fast, especially 1 hop rep variation. If you are late, you get an in-between hop. Really late and/or very lazy feet … you get a big hop. We are not working fielding either of those hops in this drill. Be on time to the short hop. Another key: On ball tossed directly in front (grounder at you) it prevents exaggerated “rounding off” the ball. Not enough time before ball hits the earth and you have to be there on time to the 1” hop. This creates a much more realistic game like rep and approach to the ball. We use a line in video to show how the alignment works. Notice how he is set up with left ear near the line. He is “preset” as far off center as he would need to get on a game rep. Left ear or left shoulder is as far off center as you ever need to get to read speed and hops at ball hit right at you. (Left handed throwers are opposite ear). If you do this drill with baseballs and a target on a net, you can finish the play with a throw and follow. Really creative and you can do this same self feed drill or your own variation to work on your double play “feeds” or slow rollers. Another variation is throwing a ball off a wall. But walls are not always available. Especially when using a baseball. We are using a tennis ball in this video. Dirt Bro Baseball

Self Toss short-hop feeds drill. 1 hop and 2 hop variations. Ball hit at you, declared backhands and glove side picks. A player can get a lot of reps in a very small space. Keys: in order to be on time to the short hop, the toss can’t be too far out front, too low or too fast. You have to start low, play low and move low (with precision feet). Why? Everything happens really fast, especially 1 hop rep variation. If you are late, you get an in-between hop. Really late and/or very lazy feet … you get a big hop. We are not working fielding either of those hops in this drill. Be on time to the short hop. Another key: On ball tossed directly in front (grounder at you) it prevents exaggerated “rounding off” the ball. Not enough time before ball hits the earth and you have to be there on time to the 1” hop. This creates a much more realistic game like rep and approach to the ball. We use a line in video to show how the alignment works. Notice how he is set up with left ear near the line. He is “preset” as far off center as he would need to get on a game rep. Left ear or left shoulder is as far off center as you ever need to get to read speed and hops at ball hit right at you. (Left handed throwers are opposite ear). If you do this drill with baseballs and a target on a net, you can finish the play with a throw and follow. Really creative and you can do this same self feed drill or your own variation to work on your double play “feeds” or slow rollers. Another variation is throwing a ball off a wall. But walls are not always available. Especially when using a baseball. We are using a tennis ball in this video. Dirt Bro Baseball

Trent Mongero

34,163 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

There is a morning in Texas when the sky stacks clouds like it means something and the pasture goes so green it almost doesn’t look real. The sun is already working. Ranch Santa Elena outside Madisonville delivered that morning. Steve Williams RegenBeef was already out with the bulls. Steve is the Genetics lead at Genetics@Beef.com, and if you have not heard his name yet, you will. He is the kind of man who does not announce himself. He shows up, he assesses, he works. That is the proof of work that earns a place in this movement, and Steve has earned his. The bulls at Ranch Santa Elena are not waiting. They are ready. Anyone who has spent time around cattle knows the difference between an animal that is settled and an animal that is prepared. These bulls are prepared. A short time from now, they make the trip to El Salvador, and when they arrive, they begin the work of building a foundation herd for a country that has chosen to take its food sovereignty seriously. That is not a small thing. Foundation herd genetics are a generational decision. Get them right and the country is building on solid ground for decades. Steve Williams understands this. He is standing in a pasture in Madisonville, Texas, looking at the animals that will carry that responsibility, and he is pleased with what he sees. So are we. The El Salvador partnership was built on peer respect and shared purpose. The Ministry of Agriculture came to the table as a sovereign nation serious about its food infrastructure. We came as a movement serious about ours. What is being loaded onto a trailer in a few weeks is not charity and it is not commerce. It is collaboration between people who understand that the integrity of a food system starts with the animal, and the animal starts with the genetics. Steve Williams knows that. Ranch Santa Elena knows that. The Beef Initiative has always known that. This is what is being built to carry forward. Introductions like this one. Proof of work in the field, not just on a screen. A genetics program that begins in Texas and lands in Central America with the weight of shared conviction behind it. Watch for Steve. Watch for these bulls. The foundation is being laid. We are Texas Slim™ Óscar Domínguez Satoshi

There is a morning in Texas when the sky stacks clouds like it means something and the pasture goes so green it almost doesn’t look real. The sun is already working. Ranch Santa Elena outside Madisonville delivered that morning. Steve Williams RegenBeef was already out with the bulls. Steve is the Genetics lead at [email protected], and if you have not heard his name yet, you will. He is the kind of man who does not announce himself. He shows up, he assesses, he works. That is the proof of work that earns a place in this movement, and Steve has earned his. The bulls at Ranch Santa Elena are not waiting. They are ready. Anyone who has spent time around cattle knows the difference between an animal that is settled and an animal that is prepared. These bulls are prepared. A short time from now, they make the trip to El Salvador, and when they arrive, they begin the work of building a foundation herd for a country that has chosen to take its food sovereignty seriously. That is not a small thing. Foundation herd genetics are a generational decision. Get them right and the country is building on solid ground for decades. Steve Williams understands this. He is standing in a pasture in Madisonville, Texas, looking at the animals that will carry that responsibility, and he is pleased with what he sees. So are we. The El Salvador partnership was built on peer respect and shared purpose. The Ministry of Agriculture came to the table as a sovereign nation serious about its food infrastructure. We came as a movement serious about ours. What is being loaded onto a trailer in a few weeks is not charity and it is not commerce. It is collaboration between people who understand that the integrity of a food system starts with the animal, and the animal starts with the genetics. Steve Williams knows that. Ranch Santa Elena knows that. The Beef Initiative has always known that. This is what is being built to carry forward. Introductions like this one. Proof of work in the field, not just on a screen. A genetics program that begins in Texas and lands in Central America with the weight of shared conviction behind it. Watch for Steve. Watch for these bulls. The foundation is being laid. We are Texas Slim™ Óscar Domínguez Satoshi

Texas Slim™

12,397 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Here's Laura Miller with a BBC Scotland news producer both apparently having difficulty with the same school toilet guidance their colleague Jamie McIvor managed to summarise with ease. The whole discussion beggared belief. It was a parody of intellectual debate. A Scotsman journalist was brought on and started rambling on about self-ID and Donald Trump. All three couldn't grasp the difference between guidance and rigid rules. One believed explaining the statutory power of Scottish schools made it *more* difficult to understand the guidance when in fact it clarified why guidance, and not rules, had to be used. The guidance was actually simple. Where previously a transgender pupil had an uncontested right to use the toilet of their choosing, they now didn't. It was now based on their biological sex or they could opt for a gender neutral toilet. The guidance allowed for understandable exemptions i.e. health, practical, wellbeing. It became clear this wasn't a quest for understanding, but rather a predetermined agenda was being pursued. The guidance had to be unclear, confusing, lack clarity. This is what BBC Scotland is. A narrative creation service. The narrative is predetermined and discussions take place that reinforce it. Client pundits are invited on who won't challenge the narrative. Groupthink replaces intellectual rigour and thought.

Here's Laura Miller with a BBC Scotland news producer both apparently having difficulty with the same school toilet guidance their colleague Jamie McIvor managed to summarise with ease. The whole discussion beggared belief. It was a parody of intellectual debate. A Scotsman journalist was brought on and started rambling on about self-ID and Donald Trump. All three couldn't grasp the difference between guidance and rigid rules. One believed explaining the statutory power of Scottish schools made it more difficult to understand the guidance when in fact it clarified why guidance, and not rules, had to be used. The guidance was actually simple. Where previously a transgender pupil had an uncontested right to use the toilet of their choosing, they now didn't. It was now based on their biological sex or they could opt for a gender neutral toilet. The guidance allowed for understandable exemptions i.e. health, practical, wellbeing. It became clear this wasn't a quest for understanding, but rather a predetermined agenda was being pursued. The guidance had to be unclear, confusing, lack clarity. This is what BBC Scotland is. A narrative creation service. The narrative is predetermined and discussions take place that reinforce it. Client pundits are invited on who won't challenge the narrative. Groupthink replaces intellectual rigour and thought.

MSM Monitor

21,961 Aufrufe • vor 10 Monaten

A heated confrontation broke out on the Fresh & Fit live interview when a guest confronted Myron Gaines over his repeated criticisms of Black women: Guest: "You talk downgrade on my culture and Black women based on your one experience, but then all your staff working for you is Black." Myron Gaines: "That shows I'm not racist. I'm critical of everybody. The reality is that Black women tend to be the most sensitive and can't take criticism." Guest: "You're a slave master using Black people to work for you while talking down on their families. You only have a couple of white employees. You're a bigot." Myron Gaines: "I'm a proud bigot, man. Proud racist. Someone's got to call out this behavior. You came in here with a low-IQ argument immediately making it about race." Guest: "You can't handle a real conversation. You can't have security kick me out like you do Black women on your show. I'll walk up right now and throw this drink in your face." Myron Gaines: "That won't be good for you, bro. Look at him, he comes in here acting crazy and making threats instead of having a high-IQ debate, proving the exact point." Was the guest right to call out Myron's history of comments, or did the physical threat ruin any valid point he was trying to make?

A heated confrontation broke out on the Fresh & Fit live interview when a guest confronted Myron Gaines over his repeated criticisms of Black women: Guest: "You talk downgrade on my culture and Black women based on your one experience, but then all your staff working for you is Black." Myron Gaines: "That shows I'm not racist. I'm critical of everybody. The reality is that Black women tend to be the most sensitive and can't take criticism." Guest: "You're a slave master using Black people to work for you while talking down on their families. You only have a couple of white employees. You're a bigot." Myron Gaines: "I'm a proud bigot, man. Proud racist. Someone's got to call out this behavior. You came in here with a low-IQ argument immediately making it about race." Guest: "You can't handle a real conversation. You can't have security kick me out like you do Black women on your show. I'll walk up right now and throw this drink in your face." Myron Gaines: "That won't be good for you, bro. Look at him, he comes in here acting crazy and making threats instead of having a high-IQ debate, proving the exact point." Was the guest right to call out Myron's history of comments, or did the physical threat ruin any valid point he was trying to make?

Leo

478,319 Aufrufe • vor 3 Tagen

🚨New science DEBATE released on HIGH CARB vs KETO: What the new Tim Noakes vs Louise Burke debate actually shows 👇 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition just released it big debate between two of the biggest names in exercise performance asking one loaded question: does a low-carbohydrate diet impair endurance performance? On one side is Louise Burke, one of the most influential sports nutrition researchers in the world. Her argument: yes, low carb can impair performance? She is not saying every athlete must eat high-carb all the time. She is saying performance depends on the event, intensity, environment, training status, sex, and the athlete in front of you. Her biggest physiological point is fuel economy. Near an athlete’s oxidative ceiling (i.e., elite race pace), she argues that carbohydrate produces more usable energy per liter of oxygen than fat. So even if keto adaptation dramatically raises fat oxidation, that does not automatically mean better speed or power. Now I am skeptical of this point, since we have conducted Randomized Controlled Trails in both runners and ironman competitors and showed that athletes at 86% of their VO2max can utilize fat as the predominant fuel while on a very low carb diet and STILL maintain performance. On the other side, Tim Noakes argues: low carb does not necessarily impair performance when athletes are adapted long enough. He points out that many “keto hurts performance” studies are short, often under four weeks, and that several randomized trials lasting four to six weeks report similar performance between high-carb and low-carb groups. He also reframes fatigue. Instead of saying muscle glycogen is always the main limiter, he argues that during prolonged exercise, maintaining blood glucose, the small glucose pool is the most important. In our trial, 10 grams of carbohydrate per hour improved prolonged cycling performance after both diets. Noakes and Burke also did something really special: they developed a CONSENSUS article where they explored key points of AGREEMENT and DISAGREEMENT for future research. This is the coolest part and in my opinion was one of the verty unique aspect of these three studies My take is this: It is not "team high carb" versus "team keto." The weight of the evidence demonstrates that 1) BOTH high and low carb diets can work, and that 2) Carbohydrates during prolonged exercise are valuable...but 3) How this is applied depends on the individual athlete. What's your take?

🚨New science DEBATE released on HIGH CARB vs KETO: What the new Tim Noakes vs Louise Burke debate actually shows 👇 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition just released it big debate between two of the biggest names in exercise performance asking one loaded question: does a low-carbohydrate diet impair endurance performance? On one side is Louise Burke, one of the most influential sports nutrition researchers in the world. Her argument: yes, low carb can impair performance? She is not saying every athlete must eat high-carb all the time. She is saying performance depends on the event, intensity, environment, training status, sex, and the athlete in front of you. Her biggest physiological point is fuel economy. Near an athlete’s oxidative ceiling (i.e., elite race pace), she argues that carbohydrate produces more usable energy per liter of oxygen than fat. So even if keto adaptation dramatically raises fat oxidation, that does not automatically mean better speed or power. Now I am skeptical of this point, since we have conducted Randomized Controlled Trails in both runners and ironman competitors and showed that athletes at 86% of their VO2max can utilize fat as the predominant fuel while on a very low carb diet and STILL maintain performance. On the other side, Tim Noakes argues: low carb does not necessarily impair performance when athletes are adapted long enough. He points out that many “keto hurts performance” studies are short, often under four weeks, and that several randomized trials lasting four to six weeks report similar performance between high-carb and low-carb groups. He also reframes fatigue. Instead of saying muscle glycogen is always the main limiter, he argues that during prolonged exercise, maintaining blood glucose, the small glucose pool is the most important. In our trial, 10 grams of carbohydrate per hour improved prolonged cycling performance after both diets. Noakes and Burke also did something really special: they developed a CONSENSUS article where they explored key points of AGREEMENT and DISAGREEMENT for future research. This is the coolest part and in my opinion was one of the verty unique aspect of these three studies My take is this: It is not "team high carb" versus "team keto." The weight of the evidence demonstrates that 1) BOTH high and low carb diets can work, and that 2) Carbohydrates during prolonged exercise are valuable...but 3) How this is applied depends on the individual athlete. What's your take?

Andrew Koutnik, Ph.D.

15,181 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Brad Gerstner: Companies Will Pay 5x More for the Best AI, No Evidence of Pricing Pressure from Open Source Brad Gerstner: “Jason, you talked about summarizing a document, it may take 20,000 cheap tokens to do. Of course, shoot that to a lagging model or an open source model. But if you're talking about replacing a software engineer for two hours, that may take two million expensive tokens, and the consequence of using something that's 95% as good is really high. Because you have a long-running task, and if the task breaks early, or it breaks in the middle, or it breaks at the end, there's a huge cost to that.” @jason: “You still burn the tokens, right? And back to this analogy I was using, you're pulling the slot machine, and you lose.” Brad: “And (you lose) the time and the compute. So if an AI agent is replacing a $200 an hour consultant, right? Take that as an example. So three consulting firms, they're competing. They need the smartest consultant. They're charging $200 an hour. The difference between spending $3 on a cheap model or $15 on an expensive model to replace a $200/hour consultant, it's just irrelevant. That inference cost difference is irrelevant if you're getting something that's bulletproof for $15, and so I think that's what we're seeing play out. The best evidence for all of this is just revenue growth. I'm talking about, what is Anthropic's revenue growth compared to OpenAI, compared to the open source models? Millions of independent actors are choosing every single day. The open source companies are growing, right? But they're growing selling something that is really, really cheap. And there's room in every single market for premium products, for mid-tier products, and for commodity products, and I think we see a lot of this token growth, people are speculating that the intelligence gap between that commodity stuff and the frontier stuff is going to collapse to the point that people won't pay for the frontier stuff. There is no evidence of that on the field today.”

Brad Gerstner: Companies Will Pay 5x More for the Best AI, No Evidence of Pricing Pressure from Open Source Brad Gerstner: “Jason, you talked about summarizing a document, it may take 20,000 cheap tokens to do. Of course, shoot that to a lagging model or an open source model. But if you're talking about replacing a software engineer for two hours, that may take two million expensive tokens, and the consequence of using something that's 95% as good is really high. Because you have a long-running task, and if the task breaks early, or it breaks in the middle, or it breaks at the end, there's a huge cost to that.” @jason: “You still burn the tokens, right? And back to this analogy I was using, you're pulling the slot machine, and you lose.” Brad: “And (you lose) the time and the compute. So if an AI agent is replacing a $200 an hour consultant, right? Take that as an example. So three consulting firms, they're competing. They need the smartest consultant. They're charging $200 an hour. The difference between spending $3 on a cheap model or $15 on an expensive model to replace a $200/hour consultant, it's just irrelevant. That inference cost difference is irrelevant if you're getting something that's bulletproof for $15, and so I think that's what we're seeing play out. The best evidence for all of this is just revenue growth. I'm talking about, what is Anthropic's revenue growth compared to OpenAI, compared to the open source models? Millions of independent actors are choosing every single day. The open source companies are growing, right? But they're growing selling something that is really, really cheap. And there's room in every single market for premium products, for mid-tier products, and for commodity products, and I think we see a lot of this token growth, people are speculating that the intelligence gap between that commodity stuff and the frontier stuff is going to collapse to the point that people won't pay for the frontier stuff. There is no evidence of that on the field today.”

The All-In Podcast

52,289 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

RHP Matt Scott (Stanford Baseball) is one of the premier college arms in this year's Draft. After a solid Freshman season that was split between the bullpen and the rotation, Scott this year anchored the Stanford rotation and collected a career-high 103 strikeouts against 36 walks across 80 innings. Earned a Team USA invite for the second straight summer. Scott has an XL, workhorse frame at 6-foot-7 and 247-pounds with plenty of strength and physicality throughout. Quiet, "checkpoint-like" delivery. Small side step towards 1B side, gathers himself and breaks into the rest of his operation. Attacks from a high-three quarter slot. Low effort, does a nice job of staying connected and in-sync for someone of his stature. FB sits in the 93-96 range, but will routinely touch 97/98. Tons of carry through the zone, averaged 22.5" of IVB last year. At its best when located in the top-1/2 of the zone, which is also where it generates most of its whiffs. Just needs to stay out of the middle. Threw it 62% of the time and generated a pretty impressive miss rate of 26%, though I think it can become even more effective if he's able to hone in on his command of it. 55 pitch right now, eventual 60 if some of the low hanging fruit is cleaned up. Supplements his FB with a mid-to-upper-80s gyro SL. I actually think Scott's feel for the SL is on par, if not better, than his feel for the heater. Effective against both right and lefthanded hitters. True, hard gyro look against LHH. Will flash more two-plane tilt against RHH with some sharpness to it. Another 55 pitch that last year had a 40% miss rate. Scott needs to up the usage on his split-change. Threw it just 6% of the time last year and I think it's his best secondary pitch. Legit weapon against LHH. Averaged nearly 12 MPH off his FB and he does an excellent job of killing spin on it; averaged 866 RPMs last season. Essentially falls off a table as it approaches the plate. Serious tumbling life with a bit of arm side fade. 48% miss across a limited sample in '24, I'd give it a 60. Command and control are both average, if not a tick above. Little-to-no reliever risk. Really like the body and stuff. Projects to be one of the first few college arms off the board this July and is a potential first-rounder.

RHP Matt Scott (Stanford Baseball) is one of the premier college arms in this year's Draft. After a solid Freshman season that was split between the bullpen and the rotation, Scott this year anchored the Stanford rotation and collected a career-high 103 strikeouts against 36 walks across 80 innings. Earned a Team USA invite for the second straight summer. Scott has an XL, workhorse frame at 6-foot-7 and 247-pounds with plenty of strength and physicality throughout. Quiet, "checkpoint-like" delivery. Small side step towards 1B side, gathers himself and breaks into the rest of his operation. Attacks from a high-three quarter slot. Low effort, does a nice job of staying connected and in-sync for someone of his stature. FB sits in the 93-96 range, but will routinely touch 97/98. Tons of carry through the zone, averaged 22.5" of IVB last year. At its best when located in the top-1/2 of the zone, which is also where it generates most of its whiffs. Just needs to stay out of the middle. Threw it 62% of the time and generated a pretty impressive miss rate of 26%, though I think it can become even more effective if he's able to hone in on his command of it. 55 pitch right now, eventual 60 if some of the low hanging fruit is cleaned up. Supplements his FB with a mid-to-upper-80s gyro SL. I actually think Scott's feel for the SL is on par, if not better, than his feel for the heater. Effective against both right and lefthanded hitters. True, hard gyro look against LHH. Will flash more two-plane tilt against RHH with some sharpness to it. Another 55 pitch that last year had a 40% miss rate. Scott needs to up the usage on his split-change. Threw it just 6% of the time last year and I think it's his best secondary pitch. Legit weapon against LHH. Averaged nearly 12 MPH off his FB and he does an excellent job of killing spin on it; averaged 866 RPMs last season. Essentially falls off a table as it approaches the plate. Serious tumbling life with a bit of arm side fade. 48% miss across a limited sample in '24, I'd give it a 60. Command and control are both average, if not a tick above. Little-to-no reliever risk. Really like the body and stuff. Projects to be one of the first few college arms off the board this July and is a potential first-rounder.

Peter Flaherty III

23,661 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

MARCHING WITH SUNRAY Route #2 of this years campaign of Marching for Finley! Our illustrious Leader Hon. Colonel Al Murray 🇺🇦 is leading the patrol of the The London IC as we March East to West, from Canning Town to White Hart,Barnes visiting various memorials of The Blitz of London! Off the start line of Canning Town Station 08.30 We Rendezvous at the The French House 13.00 When we reach our objective around 18.30 GMT we’ll Take cold beers, hot rations and a talk from Robert Lyman 🇺🇦 and Phil Craig hosted by the man of the hour Minty Murray … words of wisdom and maybe some tomfoolery too! 😆 Al has 407k followers .. if everyone donated but a £1 of your loose change we could make a HUGE difference for Finleys Touch 💚 and the amazing work they do for children with cancer and their families supporting them through their treatment! Go mad and donate a cup of coffee £5 🤷🏽 Could we raise £500k??? Just saying …. Carry on 🫡 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇 Any words of encouragement from the stable gang 😉 James Holland Dr Peter Caddick-Adams #StandwithUkraine Tony Pastor WW2 Pod: We Have Ways of Making You Talk ofentse Raphahlelo Gary Lineker Tom Holland Dominic Sandbrook The Rest Is History The Rest Is Classified Empire: World History British Army 🇬🇧 IC Ian Pegg Simon (@redfivemodels on Bluesky) Andy Chatterton Andy Merryn Jane Gulliford Lowes Jack Bowsher

MARCHING WITH SUNRAY Route #2 of this years campaign of Marching for Finley! Our illustrious Leader Hon. Colonel Al Murray 🇺🇦 is leading the patrol of the The London IC as we March East to West, from Canning Town to White Hart,Barnes visiting various memorials of The Blitz of London! Off the start line of Canning Town Station 08.30 We Rendezvous at the The French House 13.00 When we reach our objective around 18.30 GMT we’ll Take cold beers, hot rations and a talk from Robert Lyman 🇺🇦 and Phil Craig hosted by the man of the hour Minty Murray … words of wisdom and maybe some tomfoolery too! 😆 Al has 407k followers .. if everyone donated but a £1 of your loose change we could make a HUGE difference for Finleys Touch 💚 and the amazing work they do for children with cancer and their families supporting them through their treatment! Go mad and donate a cup of coffee £5 🤷🏽 Could we raise £500k??? Just saying …. Carry on 🫡 👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇 Any words of encouragement from the stable gang 😉 James Holland Dr Peter Caddick-Adams #StandwithUkraine Tony Pastor WW2 Pod: We Have Ways of Making You Talk ofentse Raphahlelo Gary Lineker Tom Holland Dominic Sandbrook The Rest Is History The Rest Is Classified Empire: World History British Army 🇬🇧 IC Ian Pegg Simon (@redfivemodels on Bluesky) Andy Chatterton Andy Merryn Jane Gulliford Lowes Jack Bowsher

Ant Bomber Brentnall

25,319 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

6 Things I’ve Changed My Mind On! 1BCAA Supplementation: My PhD research involved BCAAs. I used supplemental BCAAs for 15 years. My 1st supplement company sold a product with BCAA. I stopped recommending them because of evidence & my current company @outworknutritionofficial does not have a BCAA product because the evidence demonstrates it is not as anabolic as a comparable amount of BCAA from intact protein sources like Whey Protein (Marquez KN 2022) 2Fasted Cardio: I used to do & promote fasted cardio because it caused more fat oxidation during exercise, but fat oxidation is not the same thing as fat loss & the research showed NO DIFFERENCE in FAT LOSS when performing fed vs. fasted cardio (Hacket D & Hagstrom AD 2017) 3High intensity vs. low intensity cardio: I 1st recommended LI cardio then flipped to recommending HI cardio & finally settled on the fact there was no difference in fat loss when total work was equated between groups (PMID: 37927356) 4Meal Frequency: I used to eat 8 meals per day, a meal every 2 hours. The idea was to ‘stoke the metabolic furnace’ to cause more fat loss but this is not supported by research where calories are equated between low & high meal frequencies. One is not superior to the other (PMID: 19943985). 5LDL Cholesterol: When I got to graduate school I was convinced that it was the HDL:LDL ratio that mattered, not LDL itself. Then over time the long term research in humans very clearly demonstrated a linear increase in risk for lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol (PMID: 23083789) 6Sugar/Fructose: When I got to school I was convinced that sugar, in particular fructose/high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was uniquely fattening outside of the calories it contained. But the research very clearly does not support that. When fructose/HFCS/sugar is exchanged for other carbohydrates & calories are equated, there are no differences in fat loss or gain between diets (PMIDs: 22351714, 24642950, 9094871, & 31711109) Be open minded but not so open minded that your brain falls out From: The Dr. Layne Norton Podcast (coming soon)

6 Things I’ve Changed My Mind On! 1BCAA Supplementation: My PhD research involved BCAAs. I used supplemental BCAAs for 15 years. My 1st supplement company sold a product with BCAA. I stopped recommending them because of evidence & my current company @outworknutritionofficial does not have a BCAA product because the evidence demonstrates it is not as anabolic as a comparable amount of BCAA from intact protein sources like Whey Protein (Marquez KN 2022) 2Fasted Cardio: I used to do & promote fasted cardio because it caused more fat oxidation during exercise, but fat oxidation is not the same thing as fat loss & the research showed NO DIFFERENCE in FAT LOSS when performing fed vs. fasted cardio (Hacket D & Hagstrom AD 2017) 3High intensity vs. low intensity cardio: I 1st recommended LI cardio then flipped to recommending HI cardio & finally settled on the fact there was no difference in fat loss when total work was equated between groups (PMID: 37927356) 4Meal Frequency: I used to eat 8 meals per day, a meal every 2 hours. The idea was to ‘stoke the metabolic furnace’ to cause more fat loss but this is not supported by research where calories are equated between low & high meal frequencies. One is not superior to the other (PMID: 19943985). 5LDL Cholesterol: When I got to graduate school I was convinced that it was the HDL:LDL ratio that mattered, not LDL itself. Then over time the long term research in humans very clearly demonstrated a linear increase in risk for lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol (PMID: 23083789) 6Sugar/Fructose: When I got to school I was convinced that sugar, in particular fructose/high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) was uniquely fattening outside of the calories it contained. But the research very clearly does not support that. When fructose/HFCS/sugar is exchanged for other carbohydrates & calories are equated, there are no differences in fat loss or gain between diets (PMIDs: 22351714, 24642950, 9094871, & 31711109) Be open minded but not so open minded that your brain falls out From: The Dr. Layne Norton Podcast (coming soon)

Layne Norton, PhD

44,655 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Martin Scorsese explains 'What makes a film personal?': "I come from a tradition in the early sixties that had to do with more personal filmmaking, with themes and subject matter that you felt more confident dealing with—about yourself, about the world you came from. That kind of cinema flourished in the seventies, but since the eighties, there’s been consistently less of that in mainstream cinema. Now I even find that some of the independents are starting to show a trend toward melodrama and film noir, which indicates that they’re getting their eyes set on a more commercial aspect of cinema. When I see low-budget films today, I often feel that the directors are trying to audition for the studios. You might ask, “Why do films have to be personal, anyway?” Well, of course, it’s all a matter of opinion, but I tend to feel that the more singular the vision and the more personal the film, the more it can claim to be art. As a spectator, I find that when they’re more personal, films last longer. You can watch them over and over again, whereas with a more commercial film, you might get bored after two showings. So what makes a film personal? Do you have to write the script yourself to make the film yours, as the auteur theory claimed? Not necessarily. I think there’s kind of a twofold situation there. I think you have to make a distinction between the directors on one side and the filmmakers on the other. The directors—and they can excel at doing that—are people who only interpret the script, who just turn it from words into images. The filmmakers, however, will be able to take somebody else’s material and still manage to have a personal vision come through. They will shoot the film or direct actors in a manner that will eventually transform that film so that it becomes part of the body of work of their other films, with similar themes and approaches to material and characterization. That’s what makes the whole difference between, for instance, 'His Girl Friday' (1938) by Howard Hawks and 'Dream Wife' (1953) by Sidney Sheldon. Both are studio movies; both are comedies starring Cary Grant. And yet you can watch the first one repeatedly, whereas the second one, although pleasant, will not stand a second showing. And that’s also what makes the difference between a John Woo movie, which is always very personal, and, let’s say, the Batman sequels, which may be well crafted but could have been directed by anybody." ("Moviemakers' Masterclass", Laurent Tirard, interview conducted in 1997)

Martin Scorsese explains 'What makes a film personal?': "I come from a tradition in the early sixties that had to do with more personal filmmaking, with themes and subject matter that you felt more confident dealing with—about yourself, about the world you came from. That kind of cinema flourished in the seventies, but since the eighties, there’s been consistently less of that in mainstream cinema. Now I even find that some of the independents are starting to show a trend toward melodrama and film noir, which indicates that they’re getting their eyes set on a more commercial aspect of cinema. When I see low-budget films today, I often feel that the directors are trying to audition for the studios. You might ask, “Why do films have to be personal, anyway?” Well, of course, it’s all a matter of opinion, but I tend to feel that the more singular the vision and the more personal the film, the more it can claim to be art. As a spectator, I find that when they’re more personal, films last longer. You can watch them over and over again, whereas with a more commercial film, you might get bored after two showings. So what makes a film personal? Do you have to write the script yourself to make the film yours, as the auteur theory claimed? Not necessarily. I think there’s kind of a twofold situation there. I think you have to make a distinction between the directors on one side and the filmmakers on the other. The directors—and they can excel at doing that—are people who only interpret the script, who just turn it from words into images. The filmmakers, however, will be able to take somebody else’s material and still manage to have a personal vision come through. They will shoot the film or direct actors in a manner that will eventually transform that film so that it becomes part of the body of work of their other films, with similar themes and approaches to material and characterization. That’s what makes the whole difference between, for instance, 'His Girl Friday' (1938) by Howard Hawks and 'Dream Wife' (1953) by Sidney Sheldon. Both are studio movies; both are comedies starring Cary Grant. And yet you can watch the first one repeatedly, whereas the second one, although pleasant, will not stand a second showing. And that’s also what makes the difference between a John Woo movie, which is always very personal, and, let’s say, the Batman sequels, which may be well crafted but could have been directed by anybody." ("Moviemakers' Masterclass", Laurent Tirard, interview conducted in 1997)

DepressedBergman

46,668 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

How I currently leg press to maximize hypertrophy 🤓 1. No quarter or half repping with tons of weight with your feet high up like a BITCH 2. Choose a weight you can take through a comfortable but reasonably deep range of motion 3. Move feet low enough to have deep but comfortable dorsiflexion (toe stretch to shin) 4. Execute a range of motion that stretches the quads but keeps the tension on them through the entire rep, for me this is when I feel light pressure between my calves and hamstring (I could technically let the weight squish me to such a point that my own hamstring and body are removing tension at the bottom 5. Lay hands on knees for a totally useless safety blanket (ok half serious I do think perceived stability neurologically increases large motor unit recruitment regardless of or in tangent with actual stability but this is just a working theory I have 6. Embrace pain feel sadge For Rep schemes personally I think (after warming up) a heavy first working set 5-10 reps 1-2 reps shy of failure to maximize large motor unit recruitment followed by 1-3 lighter sets within 1-3 reps of failure of 12-15 reps works best because lighter sets following a heavy first set seems to offset the fall-off in strength for the second set due to contrast overcompensation of the muscles (think about how after a heavy set the next set FEELS lighter and often you can take the second set FURTHER) it’s almost like having 2 first sets!

How I currently leg press to maximize hypertrophy 🤓 1. No quarter or half repping with tons of weight with your feet high up like a BITCH 2. Choose a weight you can take through a comfortable but reasonably deep range of motion 3. Move feet low enough to have deep but comfortable dorsiflexion (toe stretch to shin) 4. Execute a range of motion that stretches the quads but keeps the tension on them through the entire rep, for me this is when I feel light pressure between my calves and hamstring (I could technically let the weight squish me to such a point that my own hamstring and body are removing tension at the bottom 5. Lay hands on knees for a totally useless safety blanket (ok half serious I do think perceived stability neurologically increases large motor unit recruitment regardless of or in tangent with actual stability but this is just a working theory I have 6. Embrace pain feel sadge For Rep schemes personally I think (after warming up) a heavy first working set 5-10 reps 1-2 reps shy of failure to maximize large motor unit recruitment followed by 1-3 lighter sets within 1-3 reps of failure of 12-15 reps works best because lighter sets following a heavy first set seems to offset the fall-off in strength for the second set due to contrast overcompensation of the muscles (think about how after a heavy set the next set FEELS lighter and often you can take the second set FURTHER) it’s almost like having 2 first sets!

Hench D. Kunt🥛

24,198 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

$Obama’s “Affordable” Care Act made healthcare anything but affordable. It lined the pockets of insurance companies while driving costs through the roof for everyone else. Health insurance has become one of the biggest scams in America. A family medicine doctor just blew the lid off medical pricing—proving that paying cash for basic procedures like an MRI costs only a fraction of what insurance companies charge. The proof is right here: • With insurance: $1,900 → Self-pay: $374 • With insurance: $1,250 → Self-pay: $433 • With insurance: $1,800 → Self-pay: $209 The difference between using insurance and paying out of pocket? In many cases, you actually save money by skipping insurance altogether. And your doctor doesn’t have to waste time battling red tape or begging for approval—only for you to be hit with a massive bill anyway. Take a simple MRI of the spine. Insurance companies usually force patients to go through weeks of physical therapy, try medications, and make doctors jump through endless hoops with prior authorizations, precertifications, or even “peer-to-peer” calls—just to get approval. And when you finally get the green light, they’ll charge you $1,900 for a test that would’ve cost around $200 cash.$

Obama’s “Affordable” Care Act made healthcare anything but affordable. It lined the pockets of insurance companies while driving costs through the roof for everyone else. Health insurance has become one of the biggest scams in America. A family medicine doctor just blew the lid off medical pricing—proving that paying cash for basic procedures like an MRI costs only a fraction of what insurance companies charge. The proof is right here: • With insurance: $1,900 → Self-pay: $374 • With insurance: $1,250 → Self-pay: $433 • With insurance: $1,800 → Self-pay: $209 The difference between using insurance and paying out of pocket? In many cases, you actually save money by skipping insurance altogether. And your doctor doesn’t have to waste time battling red tape or begging for approval—only for you to be hit with a massive bill anyway. Take a simple MRI of the spine. Insurance companies usually force patients to go through weeks of physical therapy, try medications, and make doctors jump through endless hoops with prior authorizations, precertifications, or even “peer-to-peer” calls—just to get approval. And when you finally get the green light, they’ll charge you $1,900 for a test that would’ve cost around $200 cash.

I Meme Therefore I Am 🇺🇸

424,960 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

$CSS Tip! 🤯 You can create a CSS-only version of this balance slider using a scroll animation on the underlying input[type=range] 🚀 ::-webkit-slider-thumb { view-timeline: --thumb inline; } Scroll animation driven by the slider thumb animates a number between the "min" and "max" of the range 😅 @property --value { inherits: true; initial-value: 0; syntax: ' '; } @keyframes sync { to { --value: 100; }} Tie that up to the contain animation-range ⚡️ .control { animation: sync both linear reverse; animation-timeline: --thumb; animation-range: contain; } Hoist the view timeline so all the parts of the control can use it! .control { timeline-scope: --thumb; } Use that value in a counter which is used for the labels. Create a low and a high for each side 😇 .control__label { counter-reset: low var(--value) high calc(100 - var(--value)); } .control__label::before { content: "COFFEE " counter(low) "%"; } .control__label::after { content: counter(high) "% MILK"; } That's the magic of updating the label values ✨ For the big track, it's a fake track. You can make use of the same --value property and do some calc() to work out the width of each part. .control__track::before { width: calc(var(--value) * 1% - 0.5rem); background: var(--coffee); border-radius: 4px; transition: width 0.1s; } The width leaves a little gap for the indicator piece 🤙 The color calculation for --coffee isn't too wild but again you can use the same --value .control__track { --coffee: hsl(24 74% calc( 24% + (30% * ((100 - var(--value, 0)) / 100)) / 1 ) / 0.4); } Now for the last piece. Making the track change height. You could set up another custom property and animate its value using the --thumb timeline too 🔥 @property --shift { initial-value: 0; inherits: true; syntax: ' '; } @keyframes shift { 0%, 31%, 61%, 100% { --shift: 0; } 32%, 60% { --shift: 1; } } Then use that --shift to update the translation of the label and height of the track 🤓 .label { transform: translateY(calc(var(--shift) * 50%)); transition: transform var(--speed) var(--timing); } Cool part here is that you can use the control to work out the @keyframes percentages 😅 Oh. And the timing for that little bounce? Use the linear() function 😎 :root { --timing: linear( 0, 0.5007 7.21%, 0.7803 12.29%, 0.8883 14.93%, 0.9724 17.63%, 1.0343 20.44%, 1.0754 23.44%, 1.0898 25.22%, 1.0984 27.11%, 1.1014 29.15%, 1.0989 31.4%, 1.0854 35.23%, 1.0196 48.86%, 1.0043 54.06%, 0.9956 59.6%, 0.9925 68.11%, 1 ); } Should probably do a video on this one. Lots of little custom property tricks for sure! 💯 It's not too far off the range slider with the tooltip that came up previously As always, any questions, let me know! Also, this one only works in Chrome currently ✅🥲 This one's a bit rocket science ha 🚀 CodePen.IO link below! 👇$

CSS Tip! 🤯 You can create a CSS-only version of this balance slider using a scroll animation on the underlying input[type=range] 🚀 ::-webkit-slider-thumb { view-timeline: --thumb inline; } Scroll animation driven by the slider thumb animates a number between the "min" and "max" of the range 😅 @property --value { inherits: true; initial-value: 0; syntax: ' '; } @keyframes sync { to { --value: 100; }} Tie that up to the contain animation-range ⚡️ .control { animation: sync both linear reverse; animation-timeline: --thumb; animation-range: contain; } Hoist the view timeline so all the parts of the control can use it! .control { timeline-scope: --thumb; } Use that value in a counter which is used for the labels. Create a low and a high for each side 😇 .controllabel { counter-reset: low var(--value) high calc(100 - var(--value)); } .controllabel::before { content: "COFFEE " counter(low) "%"; } .controllabel::after { content: counter(high) "% MILK"; } That's the magic of updating the label values ✨ For the big track, it's a fake track. You can make use of the same --value property and do some calc() to work out the width of each part. .controltrack::before { width: calc(var(--value) * 1% - 0.5rem); background: var(--coffee); border-radius: 4px; transition: width 0.1s; } The width leaves a little gap for the indicator piece 🤙 The color calculation for --coffee isn't too wild but again you can use the same --value .control__track { --coffee: hsl(24 74% calc( 24% + (30% * ((100 - var(--value, 0)) / 100)) / 1 ) / 0.4); } Now for the last piece. Making the track change height. You could set up another custom property and animate its value using the --thumb timeline too 🔥 @property --shift { initial-value: 0; inherits: true; syntax: ' '; } @keyframes shift { 0%, 31%, 61%, 100% { --shift: 0; } 32%, 60% { --shift: 1; } } Then use that --shift to update the translation of the label and height of the track 🤓 .label { transform: translateY(calc(var(--shift) * 50%)); transition: transform var(--speed) var(--timing); } Cool part here is that you can use the control to work out the @keyframes percentages 😅 Oh. And the timing for that little bounce? Use the linear() function 😎 :root { --timing: linear( 0, 0.5007 7.21%, 0.7803 12.29%, 0.8883 14.93%, 0.9724 17.63%, 1.0343 20.44%, 1.0754 23.44%, 1.0898 25.22%, 1.0984 27.11%, 1.1014 29.15%, 1.0989 31.4%, 1.0854 35.23%, 1.0196 48.86%, 1.0043 54.06%, 0.9956 59.6%, 0.9925 68.11%, 1 ); } Should probably do a video on this one. Lots of little custom property tricks for sure! 💯 It's not too far off the range slider with the tooltip that came up previously As always, any questions, let me know! Also, this one only works in Chrome currently ✅🥲 This one's a bit rocket science ha 🚀 CodePen.IO link below! 👇

jhey ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ

377,657 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Remind me another time and I will tear to pieces this response by Andy Street regarding the expansion of Islam into civic spaces. For now, I want to know what the former Mayor of the West Midlands did to help protect little White girls from gang rape by Pakistani men? We now know that police intelligence identified rape gang patterns in Birmingham similar to the Rotherham scandal. Given the evidence now on record, including West Midlands Police problem profiles and High Court interventions, what did the mayoral office know about the Pakistani Rape Gangs in Birmingham, and what action was taken? Care to comment Andy Street? Sir now isn't it? _________ I’m Raja Miah MBE. For seven years, I led a campaign that exposed how senior Labour politicians helped protect Pakistani rape gangs. The people of my town helped force the national inquiry. You won’t see me on the BBC. You won’t read my work in the legacy press. That’s not an accident. I take this to a place from where there is no coming back. Children were sold for votes. I document everything in my newsletter. It’s 100% free to read. If this work matters to you, if you believe it must continue, I need your backing. My work is free. No paywalls. No gatekeeping. No exclusions. Because the truth shouldn’t belong only to those who can afford it. If you can afford to do so, supporting me costs as little as 75p a week (£30 a year). Sign up here; 👉 If you can’t commit to a regular subscription, a one-off contribution genuinely helps keep this alive. You can support me using one of these links; 👉 👉 We’re up against a machine, politicians, police, officials, and media, working together to shrink, sanitise, and bury the truth. This work survives because of you. If you’ve ever shared my posts, learned something, or felt less alone reading them, stand with me. I need your help. Raja 🙏

Remind me another time and I will tear to pieces this response by Andy Street regarding the expansion of Islam into civic spaces. For now, I want to know what the former Mayor of the West Midlands did to help protect little White girls from gang rape by Pakistani men? We now know that police intelligence identified rape gang patterns in Birmingham similar to the Rotherham scandal. Given the evidence now on record, including West Midlands Police problem profiles and High Court interventions, what did the mayoral office know about the Pakistani Rape Gangs in Birmingham, and what action was taken? Care to comment Andy Street? Sir now isn't it? _________ I’m Raja Miah MBE. For seven years, I led a campaign that exposed how senior Labour politicians helped protect Pakistani rape gangs. The people of my town helped force the national inquiry. You won’t see me on the BBC. You won’t read my work in the legacy press. That’s not an accident. I take this to a place from where there is no coming back. Children were sold for votes. I document everything in my newsletter. It’s 100% free to read. If this work matters to you, if you believe it must continue, I need your backing. My work is free. No paywalls. No gatekeeping. No exclusions. Because the truth shouldn’t belong only to those who can afford it. If you can afford to do so, supporting me costs as little as 75p a week (£30 a year). Sign up here; 👉 If you can’t commit to a regular subscription, a one-off contribution genuinely helps keep this alive. You can support me using one of these links; 👉 👉 We’re up against a machine, politicians, police, officials, and media, working together to shrink, sanitise, and bury the truth. This work survives because of you. If you’ve ever shared my posts, learned something, or felt less alone reading them, stand with me. I need your help. Raja 🙏

Raja Miah

31,201 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

"You had very fine people on both sides..." If you only listen to that one sentence out of context, you will believe that he's equating white supremacists with protesters who want to take down monuments. But listen to the rest and you'll see that's a lie. Plenty of reasons to dislike and criticize Trump, but lies in the end only cause distrust. They might work for a while, but eventually people will discover that they are being taken for fools. And you won't get that trust back. Leaving off essential context IS a type of a lie. And this far from the only example. This happens every day towards all sorts of people who are not Trump. Look for the full unedited clip, always. Once I started doing that, my eyes opened. It was a big part of my journey and why I speak openly about things today. I don't hate journalism or journalists. I love both...when they do their job properly. When they don't, we are failed as a society on a massive level. Today, when I hear an accusation that someone like Trump said something insane, my reaction is to set aside my biases and verify. I don't believe or disbelieve it until I can check (sometimes it is true!). But repeated deception has led so many people to just reject everything the mainstream media says wholesale, even when it's true. They shouldn't, they should verify. But that's the reality. And it's the manipulation of narratives by media and a number of institutions that has led us here. Distrust is at an all time high. Quickest way to lose trust? Be caught in lies.

"You had very fine people on both sides..." If you only listen to that one sentence out of context, you will believe that he's equating white supremacists with protesters who want to take down monuments. But listen to the rest and you'll see that's a lie. Plenty of reasons to dislike and criticize Trump, but lies in the end only cause distrust. They might work for a while, but eventually people will discover that they are being taken for fools. And you won't get that trust back. Leaving off essential context IS a type of a lie. And this far from the only example. This happens every day towards all sorts of people who are not Trump. Look for the full unedited clip, always. Once I started doing that, my eyes opened. It was a big part of my journey and why I speak openly about things today. I don't hate journalism or journalists. I love both...when they do their job properly. When they don't, we are failed as a society on a massive level. Today, when I hear an accusation that someone like Trump said something insane, my reaction is to set aside my biases and verify. I don't believe or disbelieve it until I can check (sometimes it is true!). But repeated deception has led so many people to just reject everything the mainstream media says wholesale, even when it's true. They shouldn't, they should verify. But that's the reality. And it's the manipulation of narratives by media and a number of institutions that has led us here. Distrust is at an all time high. Quickest way to lose trust? Be caught in lies.

Katherine Brodsky

15,317 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Most $TAO holders staking right now are trusting the wrong validators. Not because they are careless. Because nobody explained what the numbers on the Validators page actually mean. There is a tool inside Taostats that shows you exactly which validators are genuinely working and which ones are collecting your emissions without contributing anything to the network. It is free. It is live. And almost nobody is using it correctly. Here is exactly how to read it. Step 1: Understand what Dominance actually measures. Dominance is not popularity. It is not a ranking of which validator is best. It describes a validator's Stake Weight as a percentage of all validator stake weights combined across the network. Stake Weight is calculated as: root stake multiplied by 0.18, plus all alpha staked across subnets converted into TAO. Root stake is deliberately discounted at 18 percent of its face value. Alpha stake carries the full weight. This means a validator with deep subnet-level staking is structurally more powerful than one sitting purely on root, even if their raw TAO numbers look similar on the surface. When you see a validator with rising Dominance over time, it is not just getting more popular. It is getting more alpha stake directed toward it across active subnets. That is a meaningful signal about where serious capital is moving inside the network. Step 2: Check the Take percentage before you delegate anything. Take is the percentage of emissions the validator keeps for itself. Everything above that number flows to you as a nominator. A validator with a 18 percent Take keeps 18 percent of the emissions their position generates and distributes the remainder to stakeholders. A validator with a 50 percent Take is keeping half of what your stake earns. Most people never look at this number before delegating. It is the first number you should check. A high Take is not automatically a red flag if the validator is genuinely performing well and contributing to the network. But a high Take combined with low VTrust in their subnet performance page is the exact combination that should make you move your stake immediately. Step 3: Open the Validator Performance page and find the VTrust score. This is the number most holders never see. VTrust measures how closely a validator's weight assignments align with the honest stake-weighted majority across the network inside each subnet they operate in. Validators are responsible for evaluating miner output and assigning scores. Those scores go into Yuma Consensus and determine which miners earn emissions. A validator doing genuine evaluation work will have weights that align closely with the honest consensus. High VTrust. Consistent emissions. Reliable nominator returns. A validator that is weight copying, meaning they are simply copying the Yuma consensus scores back onto themselves rather than doing real evaluation, will show a flagged return on Taostats. Their nom/24hr/1k TAO score appears in red. This is Taostats telling you directly: this validator is extracting value from the network without contributing to it. When you stake to a weight copying validator, you are funding a free rider. Step 4: Watch the 24hr Nominator Change column. This number moves fast and it tells you something before any other signal does. A validator losing nominators over consecutive days is a validator that informed stakers are quietly leaving. A validator gaining nominators rapidly while their VTrust is healthy is a validator attracting attention for the right reasons. The 24hr column is the on-chain version of sentiment before sentiment becomes a narrative on social media. Step 5: Check Active subnets alongside Total Weight. Active tells you the number of subnets where the validator has a parent or child hotkey running. A validator with high Total Weight but low Active subnets is concentrated. They are running a specific strategy in specific markets. A validator with broad Active coverage across many subnets is building a wider surface area for emissions and is more exposed to the overall network performance rather than any single subnet cycle. Neither is inherently better. But knowing which type of validator you are delegating to tells you what you are actually betting on when you stake. Step 6: Check the Weight Change column over time. Total Weight is a snapshot. Weight Change is momentum. A validator with stable or growing Total Weight over consecutive days is attracting net new stake consistently. A validator with declining Weight Change is losing stake faster than it is gaining it. Most people look at the current number. The people positioning correctly are watching which direction the number is moving and how fast. The difference between a good validator and a dangerous one is not obvious from the outside. It is not the name. It is not the size. It is the VTrust score, the Take percentage, the nominator trend, and whether Taostats is showing their return in red or not. Every one of those signals is sitting on the Validators page right now. Free. Live. Updated every block. The investors who read the data layer before the narrative layer will not need to explain their staking decisions later. Open Taostats tonight. You will want to find this post when you do.

Most $TAO holders staking right now are trusting the wrong validators. Not because they are careless. Because nobody explained what the numbers on the Validators page actually mean. There is a tool inside Taostats that shows you exactly which validators are genuinely working and which ones are collecting your emissions without contributing anything to the network. It is free. It is live. And almost nobody is using it correctly. Here is exactly how to read it. Step 1: Understand what Dominance actually measures. Dominance is not popularity. It is not a ranking of which validator is best. It describes a validator's Stake Weight as a percentage of all validator stake weights combined across the network. Stake Weight is calculated as: root stake multiplied by 0.18, plus all alpha staked across subnets converted into TAO. Root stake is deliberately discounted at 18 percent of its face value. Alpha stake carries the full weight. This means a validator with deep subnet-level staking is structurally more powerful than one sitting purely on root, even if their raw TAO numbers look similar on the surface. When you see a validator with rising Dominance over time, it is not just getting more popular. It is getting more alpha stake directed toward it across active subnets. That is a meaningful signal about where serious capital is moving inside the network. Step 2: Check the Take percentage before you delegate anything. Take is the percentage of emissions the validator keeps for itself. Everything above that number flows to you as a nominator. A validator with a 18 percent Take keeps 18 percent of the emissions their position generates and distributes the remainder to stakeholders. A validator with a 50 percent Take is keeping half of what your stake earns. Most people never look at this number before delegating. It is the first number you should check. A high Take is not automatically a red flag if the validator is genuinely performing well and contributing to the network. But a high Take combined with low VTrust in their subnet performance page is the exact combination that should make you move your stake immediately. Step 3: Open the Validator Performance page and find the VTrust score. This is the number most holders never see. VTrust measures how closely a validator's weight assignments align with the honest stake-weighted majority across the network inside each subnet they operate in. Validators are responsible for evaluating miner output and assigning scores. Those scores go into Yuma Consensus and determine which miners earn emissions. A validator doing genuine evaluation work will have weights that align closely with the honest consensus. High VTrust. Consistent emissions. Reliable nominator returns. A validator that is weight copying, meaning they are simply copying the Yuma consensus scores back onto themselves rather than doing real evaluation, will show a flagged return on Taostats. Their nom/24hr/1k TAO score appears in red. This is Taostats telling you directly: this validator is extracting value from the network without contributing to it. When you stake to a weight copying validator, you are funding a free rider. Step 4: Watch the 24hr Nominator Change column. This number moves fast and it tells you something before any other signal does. A validator losing nominators over consecutive days is a validator that informed stakers are quietly leaving. A validator gaining nominators rapidly while their VTrust is healthy is a validator attracting attention for the right reasons. The 24hr column is the on-chain version of sentiment before sentiment becomes a narrative on social media. Step 5: Check Active subnets alongside Total Weight. Active tells you the number of subnets where the validator has a parent or child hotkey running. A validator with high Total Weight but low Active subnets is concentrated. They are running a specific strategy in specific markets. A validator with broad Active coverage across many subnets is building a wider surface area for emissions and is more exposed to the overall network performance rather than any single subnet cycle. Neither is inherently better. But knowing which type of validator you are delegating to tells you what you are actually betting on when you stake. Step 6: Check the Weight Change column over time. Total Weight is a snapshot. Weight Change is momentum. A validator with stable or growing Total Weight over consecutive days is attracting net new stake consistently. A validator with declining Weight Change is losing stake faster than it is gaining it. Most people look at the current number. The people positioning correctly are watching which direction the number is moving and how fast. The difference between a good validator and a dangerous one is not obvious from the outside. It is not the name. It is not the size. It is the VTrust score, the Take percentage, the nominator trend, and whether Taostats is showing their return in red or not. Every one of those signals is sitting on the Validators page right now. Free. Live. Updated every block. The investors who read the data layer before the narrative layer will not need to explain their staking decisions later. Open Taostats tonight. You will want to find this post when you do.

2xnmore

11,771 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Michael Cheritto, Tom Sizemore's character in Heat, famously says "for me, the action is the juice." But what the film never tells us is that he's a recovering heroin addict, using the adrenaline rush he gets from high-stakes armed robbery as a replacement for his fix. According to the original screenplay, Cheritto is a forty-year-old Sicilian ex-convict who spent fifteen years incarcerated for armed robbery to feed his habit. Though he's been "off smack and anything else for five years," the script paints a stark contradiction: "He's clean and sober. He's the nicest guy on the block and a loving father. If you get in his way, he'll kill you as soon as look at you. If you asked him about the contradictions, he wouldn't know what you were talking about." In a deleted scene meant to appear early in the film, Cheritto arrives home after the armored car robbery. He hands his wife Elaine a packet of cash — his share — then abruptly blanks out. His eyes glaze over, staring into space, completely detached. Elaine watches with a lingering, concerned expression. This moment of dissociation is rooted in the psychological phenomenon of compartmentalization — when someone mentally keeps different parts of their life separate, moving between conflicting identities without fully confronting the contradiction. Cheritto has two totally different sides: violent armed robber and loving family man. But he doesn't seem to experience those roles as incompatible. His mind keeps them sealed off from each other. On a job, he's the hyper-vigilant criminal. At home, he's a loving suburban father. The problem is, switching between those identities so fast and so often takes a toll — even if he doesn't notice it happening. He isn't consciously wrestling with the contradiction — the script is clear he wouldn't even recognize it as one. But that unawareness has a cost: keeping the two identities apart takes psychological work beneath conscious thought. The blank stare in this deleted scene is that work surfacing — the switch misfiring in real time, leaving him briefly catatonic in front of his own family. Elaine knows his history — the addiction, the methadone clinics, the years in prison. A sudden blank stare from a former addict is an immediate warning sign of relapse, and her concern reflects that hyper-vigilance. She recognizes that despite his sobriety, his mind remains lost in the addictive high of "the action" — a psychological absence that ultimately leads to his violent death later in the film.

Michael Cheritto, Tom Sizemore's character in Heat, famously says "for me, the action is the juice." But what the film never tells us is that he's a recovering heroin addict, using the adrenaline rush he gets from high-stakes armed robbery as a replacement for his fix. According to the original screenplay, Cheritto is a forty-year-old Sicilian ex-convict who spent fifteen years incarcerated for armed robbery to feed his habit. Though he's been "off smack and anything else for five years," the script paints a stark contradiction: "He's clean and sober. He's the nicest guy on the block and a loving father. If you get in his way, he'll kill you as soon as look at you. If you asked him about the contradictions, he wouldn't know what you were talking about." In a deleted scene meant to appear early in the film, Cheritto arrives home after the armored car robbery. He hands his wife Elaine a packet of cash — his share — then abruptly blanks out. His eyes glaze over, staring into space, completely detached. Elaine watches with a lingering, concerned expression. This moment of dissociation is rooted in the psychological phenomenon of compartmentalization — when someone mentally keeps different parts of their life separate, moving between conflicting identities without fully confronting the contradiction. Cheritto has two totally different sides: violent armed robber and loving family man. But he doesn't seem to experience those roles as incompatible. His mind keeps them sealed off from each other. On a job, he's the hyper-vigilant criminal. At home, he's a loving suburban father. The problem is, switching between those identities so fast and so often takes a toll — even if he doesn't notice it happening. He isn't consciously wrestling with the contradiction — the script is clear he wouldn't even recognize it as one. But that unawareness has a cost: keeping the two identities apart takes psychological work beneath conscious thought. The blank stare in this deleted scene is that work surfacing — the switch misfiring in real time, leaving him briefly catatonic in front of his own family. Elaine knows his history — the addiction, the methadone clinics, the years in prison. A sudden blank stare from a former addict is an immediate warning sign of relapse, and her concern reflects that hyper-vigilance. She recognizes that despite his sobriety, his mind remains lost in the addictive high of "the action" — a psychological absence that ultimately leads to his violent death later in the film.

Gangster Cinema Central

233,109 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen