Bobylonian

If that will hold you back to look after your health, then there are easier choices to make a suicide.

Unlike in your country, my country is not providing free medical help, so no matter where you are looking for it - with private doctor or goverment subsided(that you still have to pay for, unless you are a citizen of different EU country), you still have to pay money to receive medical services.

That is a very good point and I wonder why I have not thought about that. Though I always looked on this as a prediction tool - not for classifying things, as for that I had my own observations.

I would think, that modern astrology is cultural thing, where people self-condition themselves in believing in some of the things, however I can't think of many similarities between me and other people, that would be as the same that I am sharing with my parents(and link to parents is the main in defining my characteristics, even when I do not like that link), so meh.

>However, I haven’t heard a remotely plausible explanation for the position of celestial objects at the moment of birth having an impact on personality traits.

Well, to be fair Astrology is where IT started and highest Mathematics were involved in Babylonia(my username here is just a mere coincidence). Observable celestial movements here can be regarded as a natural computer of Solar system scale. How that natural computer is used is a different matter.

I'm not really into Astrology(which is mother of Astronomy, btw), but I had interest about this topic... anyway, you must wonder how different is this approach of predicting things in Universe compared to modern AI, that makes predictions from assembled data. If the modern science is regarding a question if mere existence of this world can be compared to hologram, how it is different from observing some parts of hologram to make predictions about smaller parts of it, where humans are living on Earth, that is part of observable Solar system, where other Solar objects affects it and differently on each point of surface? Besides, this looks like a more reliable mechanism in predicting future(at least for agricultural events), than looking into coffee mug after drinking a coffee or throwing bones...

PS. Despite common misconception, both Western and Chinese astrology take high value on hour of birth - not year. Western astrology can't plot precise charts without knowing time of birth and secret(primary) animal sign of a person in Chinese astrology is based on hour as well.

2019 is really too late for prediction. I was wondering about all the prophets of future and astrology that I was following and there was no one that predicted covid and lockdowns. The closest to predicting covid, lockdowns and other things that I had read were from conspiracy theorists.

I decided to get a bit further and get Sailfish(main reason was because of somewhat closest Nokia succession - the other choices were Pure OS, Ubuntu) compatible phone, because Android Google Play has the same draconic % as Apple store. Though, to be fair there is still a possibility to install apps without using Google Play, but I am not happy, that there are some apps I do not use and they stay in memory and can't be removed permanently.

Also, seems that Windows 10 will go bye bye in 2022 as well and have to decide on which Linux(mandrake seems more user friedly than plain Arch), because W10 disrupts my order of things by consistently rebooting(probably for some small updates) or updating machine during the night, when instead of open apps as I have left them, I have clean log in screen in the morning. Ah, and not going to W11 - not only because of spying, but because I do not wish to spend money for new hardware specifically to Windows, if my old hardware has not been maxed out - in regards to memory.

Well, health is more valuable than any money. But I would not think, that maintaining health and knowledge is cheap. it sure is cheaper than being stupid and ruining lives of other people.

Next gen medicine requires DNA sequencing to understand what you have to look out for and what you actually do not need to care about. Since governments are lagging behind in this(though to be fair, that is planned eventually in some uncertain future date), it is up to you to do DNA sequencing today. Get your DNA sequenced and look on results - maybe you need to worry about something else and not covid.

You can get full DNA sequencing from 200$ up to 700$ of whole DNA from nebula: https://nebula.org/whole-genome-sequencing-dna-test/

My thinking is that 90% of people in general DO NOT NEED TO WORRY ABOUT COVID. Actually, worrying about covid and feeling uncertain is making people more stressful and that damages immunity. So, essentially, people who are making other people fear about covid and are INSISTING that everyone should be vaccinated are responsible for some % of the deaths from covid and from other diseases, because their immunity has been damaged from too much stress. Just stap stressing yourself and others.

The modern issue is that most of experts are with very narrow expertise, which is not carrying that great weight as you might think and such expertise also doesn't mean that much in responsibilities.

My mother at 14 after a car accident was considered as lost cause and by opinion of expert she should be dead, but survived only because her relative with much less medical expertise believed in second opinion and got her in different hospital. Sometimes, these stupid parroted ideas about expert opinions can only be proven wrong by personal experience only. But quite many people do not learn from their own mistakes, so, meh - there is no cure for stupid people, who can't think by themselves.

PS Every covid mutation so far has put scientists on alert...

The first one I was working might have been Noritsu, the next one was Fuji photo processing machine. They both had to use at least 3 different chemical containers and photo paper rolls - each for different sizes(and materials - gloss, matt, silk) of photos, so basically if you were making one size of pictures(and same material), you had to do that type of photos first and then swap to other type of paper. Though, some of the swaps had to be done earlier, because of promise for customers to have their pictures in ~1h done.

I think, that people downvoted this because 1990 was not really a time when everyone took color pictures, but more like in late 90s, when photo cameras became cheap and widely available and there was also available reasonably cheap service to develop films and photos in short time on automated machines. So, unless you were able to purchase very expensive equipment, you could not have good color photos to care for what B&W could get you, unless you were paying for professional services.

In 1998(or maybe even 1999) I was working on the first and latest Japanese machines that had digital color screen(where you could adjust colors and crop photos), that was bought from Japanese company as one of the earliest in Europe and that was all the rage, when Kodak was killed off because of them, because of FUJI. In most of the 1990s everyone were making photographies on machines with negative screen(sometimes not even zoomed film frame) - they could not see photos the way they would be before they were printed out. The final peak of color photographies on film coincided when digital cameras started to become "bearable". So, looking on my album, it is 2003(Canon Power Shot A70, which came out in 2003), when I had first digital photos(and their quality IMO were getting close to what you could get from film camera), so actually that company that bought that expensive automatic color photo printer had ~5 years to operate it...

Though, it was a crapy job - I was making on average 3000 photos per day(if it was a late shift, it was going into very late night, so max 12h) in summer and had a junior salary... with that quality of pictures(cropped and color adjustments) I was giving out with that machine, what other operators did not care that much.

So, more or less good color photographies, that were comparable to B&W were only couple of years before first digital cameras appeared(so more like - late 1990s), so it could not be possible, that in 1990 everyone was using color photos. 1990ies were becoming very global very quickly, but at that time, if in Japan everyone had color photos, it did not apply for everyone else outside of Japan for 1-2 years, because market had to catch up(and if you were able to buy equipment and a film, it did not mean, that you were able to develop your film and make photos, if your local photo shop was not able do those). US maybe had shorter time, but by late 1990s it still had a gap what you could get in Japan and what was available in US and here in Europe these things appeared as last.

Unless there is a mix-up about Polaroids, that "everyone used" according to MTV - have not owned them, because they were not cheap and most probably their paper was not on cheap side as well.

People rarely has photo nowadays, because they have phone. So, the whole era of things has gone - that includes calculators, alarms, radios and music players. Mobile phones killed them all.

They are not digital photos, but from films. Color films require 4 layers for colors. B&W has only one metalic silver layer and because there are no colors, it can be more granulated. I think, that silver crystals were even smaller than what was from color layer crystals, so B&W films had not 4x times more silver "pixels" but even more, compared to what color films had, hence the reason why those color pictures look so blury, compared to so good B&W pictures.

Not to mention, that B&W films and pictures with very good results could develop every amateur and during the development process add various effects - sepia is one of them, but you could get blue tint by mixing some other chemicals.

Exactly, only op does not account, that some Russian[insert the one that at that point is at lowest development capability] module on joining would create space colony quakes and add other hazards... maybe even huge hole in the structure.

But looking on global picture and far in future with satellite internet - that is easily solvable, but technical issues on running those games in Stadia are least things that people are concerned about.

My personal preferences is owning a game library, because not always I play games, that require co-op or connection, but if the future is that you are opening browser and playing game from vast library of games on TV, for wich you pay subscription fee, then Stadia is on the right track. Actually, Stadia would be only one of many services and most probably that would be combined with Microsoft gaming. Looking in retrospect, most of the things are logical from what Microsoft was doing, but the question to me is always about if this is something I want as well. Looking on how automatic updates behaves on my Windows 10, it seems that 2022 is the year, I am abandoning Windows. And Stadia here is least thing I am worried about, because I don't.

Hey, English is not my native language and "getting off the rails" here was meant, that you are leading yourself astray and falling off the cliff. I mean you are losing track of this debate that smoke is causing a cancer.

But to be fair, I can't see sense of following other logic of yours, because I recently lost a relative to a cancer and there was absolutelly nothing to blame for, except that she got into toxic environment, which killed her.

Also, if we come to that - did you know, that in UK there were cases, that spouse was poisoned by chemicals, that causes cancer - are you aware that there are thousands of medical drugs, that has side effect that might cause cancer? How are you going to explain those with your logic? So, apparently person is developing a disease, and in process of treating that disease, person develops a cancer... good luck in explaining that with behavioral impact, like you are trying to do on fixating on HPV, which is only one of thousands viruses that can potentially damage cells and eventually damage cell programming and cause a cancer.

HPV is causing deformations of human cells. That is basically definition of what cancer does, only cancer is caused by wrong cell service programming itself - not by viruses. HPV itself can't cause cancer upon entering human body - there has to be development of mutated cell, that starts to spread cancer. If you think, that HPV causes behaviour, well... hard luck, you can end up by blaming your parents.

Give your kids a vaccine against herpes and HPV and stap worrying about something you can't affect and reading those articles is not going to help, knowing that (constant)stress also causes cancer. Not intended to be rude, but women are more affected by hormones and no sex also can cause cancer. You don't have to be smoker and can eat healthy to get cancer nowadays, but to prevent degradation of cell programming is responsibility of genes.

No, you are getting off the rails here - to prove that cancer causes smoking you have to provide real life example of a non smoker, where after getting cancer, a patient starts to smoke. That patient might be some kind of exception, but this does not work for cancer patients at all. So, cancer akkktually does not cause smoking and there is no way to prove that, unless you are thinking of developing mutation of cancer that carries some mutagen, that as a side effect also causes patients to start smoking, but let's be real...

And it is not smoking that causes cancer, but exposure to chemicals, that causes cancer. And only if that exposure is critical. For the same reason you are able to take x-rays, but not often. So if you are smoking peace pipe ceremonially once per occassion - this is not going to cause you a cancer.

The problem with the consciousness is that by default it is limited to ability perceive senses and bacteria clearly is beyound our limits of consciousness, but that does not make them less real. Our brains collect and process information subconsciously - the layer of our consciousness is not responsible for all the background work, that our brains are doing. There can't exist hypothesis in regards of gut processes affecting very thin layer of consciousness.

So, but can you disprove that gut bacteria can't impact brain processes? They can deliver signals to the brain, so what is exatly the obstacle that it makes it impossible task?

Well, if I remember, then there was an article about that some bacteria that was present in brains was also present in gut.

The very quick stupid idea was that bacteria from guts was invading brains, but there might be other explanations to that - bacterias are also living outside gut and if some of them somehow are finding a way into the brains, that does not mean that they came directly from guts. Might be - might be not and brains might have other canals that allows bacteria to enter and once they are in brains, they might be able to get control over things and condition brains in favouring specific gut bacteria, by requesting - craving specific food. So, I don't see that this research has nullified those ideas about bacterias affecting brains and helping their species of bacterias without knowing about them. But what this article is proposing is not illogical - not getting into demands of zombified controlled brains hold hostage of bacterias, or actually - developing healthy dietary habbits, by favouring diversity of gut bacterias in first place.

Maybe. Humans developed their brains mainly because primate ancestors ~3 million years ago started to hunt other animals(including other primates) for meat and eat cooked protein rich meat, which allowed to develop and maintain bigger brains. That affected more diverse gut bacteria of primates - they lost ability to process raw meat more efficiently, because there was no more need for that.

My take is that in overall ASD is next evolutionary change in brain development, where things that were coming from natural animal world are given away - that includes easy and intiutive social interaction that monkeys have, filtering of visual and sensory information that is bombarding our brains, where normally humans ignore 80-90% of information that brain receives and that includes gut behaviour as well. Apparently this brain development change can come together only with prolonged life.

Yes, but let's be reasonable - not everything that is available as a food can be classified as food(in the sense of healthy food). I, for one, as an omnivore, that shuns extreme food preferences, have a very diverse diet(which includes meat, fish, vegetables) and prepare and cook food myself and my strange habbit is not getting the same food every day, because it gets too boring. Even because of this diverse diet, I still can easily develop some problems, that other people seems to not have eating the same food.

Also, if you think about that - not only smell, but taste and texture can cause sensory overload and if you have eaten something that feels funny, that means that your gut also is sending signals. I have vomited food, that others did not had problems eating, even if that food was probably slighly spoiled - apparently this is something that my gut tolerates less than others.

Let's also think on whom this paper is aimed at - in general people are stupid, like the parent that succumbed to childs demands of food(though, pear is fruit, smoked chicken is meat, waffle is providing hydrocarbonates). So, there are people out there, that has to be taught, that varied diet has to be taught in chhildhood - that knowledge will stay for the rest of your life. If my parents were allowing me to eat only candies, that I was happy to consume in large quantities and not introduced to fish and other foods, that I found repulsive as a kid, then I would be similar to other people, who were not exposed to some foods and still find them repulsive, like in childhood. Some things have to be taught in childhood - like immunity - if children are not exposed to countryside, or exposure to danger - of open flame, etc.

Koalas that are feeding upon specific Eucaliptic trees are not born with those gut bacterias, that are allowing to eat those leaves - they have to receive that gut bacteria via consuming fecal matter of their koala mother - if they are not receiving that bacteria, they are for sure having problems with their diet.

If it exists, it doesn't follow, that it is used for a tea, or in this case, that it has any military value over military satellites on the Earths orbit... even if it can disable sattelite, that doesn't follow that it is the best satellite disabler and that teapots function is exlusivelly to disable a satellite.

Sometimes stairs are just used as a stairs and there are no other functions for them, than just walk those steps up and down, up and down - every day.

That theory doesn't have any ground, but I am more interested what makes people believe that there is such theory. Nobody today claims, that everything that is written in a Bible is true, why would there such belief without any doubt to something that someone claimed just 100 years ago?

Do not know about staircases, but the toilets on top of the walls is great way to use butts. The only issue is getting to toilet fast enough, but we can come up with theory that people in medival ages were quick runners to toilet...

The best rebuttal would be if someone would actually just carry a sword(not to mention about getting in proper medieval outfit of a fighter) on those circular stairs and then when resting and catching breath thought about advantages of sword fights on STEEP staircases, regardless of their direction...

On the contrary, I am quite aware of those, but op is not. Krak des Chevaliers might not really fit the profile of castles in clasical meaning, but belong to a very specific niche of fortifications of military monastic orders in Middle East.

As for castles in UK - these aparently are representative castles and not really only fortifications. Even the smallests castles in UK were mainly used for something that was manor estate of a local royal family.

Well, if that was practice, then attackers would know about that. Also, there is possibility for someone who is running away to trip.

However, there is a hole in logic - what roof has any strategical advantage? Perhaps, one person will trip - rest of 99 out of 100, that are chasing you would eventually go through. Were there any further routes from the roof? Death from falling is my guess...

The reason why there would be higher step for roof, might have more something to do with dampness and to prevent wearing of that step, or to prevent leakage from the roof, that would stream down the stairs. SAeriously, who is making those stories, that makes no sense and who are so gullible to believe them? Are there any of those stairs seen on money? Drunks from my native town were telling stories about oak(which is recently planted - no more than 50 years), ythat they claimed were pictured on money... usually they wanted to claim that money after a story, if someone wanted to disprove it and brought their vallet out...

Starting from ~15th century, the mightiest castles in Europe were blown with kegs of powder. Most of those magnificent castles or forts are now as ruins in Europe because of those wars. The reason why UK have preserved those castles is that they had no such equally devastating wars and they were not used for real defence, but clearly their only role is left as prestige of something that was preserved from past.

It all depends on context - medieval castles lost their meanings as defenses 500 years ago. In modern times they are useless as defences - sometimes not even against squatters...

That's a miracle story, where Superman is arriving in the last second, but still - what it has to do with fights on stairs?

If there were no help from outside, next would be keep wall, or most probably lack of food and water for defenders.

People clearly have not visited medieval castles and walked on those stairs. They are so STEEP, that your main worry about using those is not to slip on your way down and taking breath, when you are gone through them up to a place where you can rest.

PS those staircases are ideal places to just barricade and set fire and let defenders to die from smoke. People in medieval times were not such morons to fight there...

1. If we are nitpicking this article, then castle is not a fort - it is an office, that houses ruler and his court. Castle is a residence to accept high flow of people and not planned for sieges. Castle also would have enough of army to defend it(and siege is not a defence - it happens when there is a lack of it!) - it really is not something that was planned to be sieged, not to mention any fights indoors.

2. What author meant was that 30% of them who were anti-clockwise clearly does not mean that those other 70% were projected by people who thought of using stairs as battle scene.

3. I've mostly visited early medieval castles, that had anti-clockwise stairs, so meh... it looks like a cultural thing. I even doubt that these were used when carrying sword, because those had not much space to have it there, so it looked like something to be used for practical everyday usage - not battles.

4. If a person was wearing armor in medieval times, he was like a tank. If there was a discussion among nobles and one of them got pissed and decided to wear an armor and return to continue discussion... well, pretty much the discussion was over for rest of party, regardless of presence of swords. Though, despite the trope used in cinema, I can't imagine swordfighting in medieval setting between armored opponents on stairs. If the one on top of stairs slipped, the opponent below would be disabled from the weight of opponent above him. They would also not be able to step on those stairs... and if it all comes to that, swordfight is not requirement to rat out enemy - for that was used fire and smoke. Pretty much it is what author was mentioning - if there is a breach, it is game over for defenders and no real reason to continue defending anymore. The only thing they can try is fleeing.

Fighting, that involves swords and no armor is very late invention, where fortification defenses were useless and could be blown up by a powder and all the "strategical" stairs would be turned into a rubble.

Where are you getting your information? Tizen OS is not dead. It is well alive and kicking and being improved and Samsung is slowly implementing that unified OS not only for their phones, but for other Samsung products. The main issue for any phone producer is that any OS that they do not own also Android comes at a price - there is no such thing as free OS.

There are also plenty of other mobile phone OS, that are not compatible with every phone and that is the main issue why they are not widespread. Phone that I own is supported not only by Android(and Android forks), but also couple of other mobile phone OS. The trend is that in future there will be more choices for OS, that might satisfy those users, that are currently not happy about Android, but have no other choices at the moment.

There are at least 10 other mobile OS choices - most of them are based on Linux, but current share of those is ~0,1% out of ~6 billion of phones. In total numbers that is only 6 million devices. 6 million device market is a significant number for any company, not to mention, that this number is only playground compared to 1000x larger world market of mobile phones.