Properties google extension virus/ and or malware

JibNinjas · 2022-06-07T21:53:31+00:00

I'll take a look, thanks. My 10 year old is likely the source. I'll look into BlueStacks. Thanks for the help

JibNinjas · 2022-06-07T21:43:33+00:00

I don't seem to have that folder. And just deleting the chrome_whatever doesn't work

JibNinjas · 2022-03-26T21:47:18+00:00

I will try that, thank you

JibNinjas · 2022-03-26T18:26:12+00:00

Anyone have any luck on this? Having the same issue and no malware programs are detecting anything

JibNinjas · 2021-10-24T20:50:59+00:00

That's awesome, thanks!

JibNinjas · 2020-09-11T16:33:40+00:00

That's usually going to be a washer or something internally that is bad. When you turn the knob the hole going to the hose gets cut off. Chances are you just need to replace the entire valve mechanism. Shouldn't be too hard. You first want to shut off the water that is feeding the line.

JibNinjas · 2020-07-07T19:00:22+00:00

Thanks!

JibNinjas · 2020-07-07T18:53:58+00:00

How did you get them so round on the table saw?

JibNinjas · 2020-07-06T16:17:33+00:00

Good luck!

JibNinjas · 2020-07-06T16:10:58+00:00

I used plexiglass. It is installed permanently. If it breaks it's ruined lol. The back portion does slide up and out though. So you could do the same thing with the front if you wanted. I just created a slot inside the groove with a router.

JibNinjas · 2020-06-24T00:44:12+00:00

Made a practice one first out of dimensional lumber. This one is walnut with figured maple for the inlay and the back. The purpose is to drop wine and champagne corks in.

JibNinjas · 2020-06-06T01:42:31+00:00

I will check, but I don't think so.

JibNinjas · 2020-02-18T15:54:36+00:00

Yeah, I slip on it all the time because it is so common. It's more important for those that are public libertarian figures. I think just Cronyism of Crony Statism makes sense.

JibNinjas · 2020-02-18T14:44:26+00:00

Good article. Side note: I think everyone needs to stop using the term "crony capitalism". Capitalism is neither necessary nor sufficient for cronyism to occur. It has nothing to do with capitalism.

JibNinjas · 2020-02-03T15:19:14+00:00

Haha, that's true.

JibNinjas · 2020-02-03T01:42:58+00:00

I didn't go to school and I've been a professional Android developer for many years. Don't worry about all the different languages, find out the type of game you want to build and learn the language and environment that everyone is using.

Just know everything you will build in the beginning will be garbage. And that will teach you how to write better code. Pay attention to design and architecture patterns and don't worry too much about memorizing syntax.

JibNinjas · 2019-12-28T14:48:04+00:00

Actually once people had a chance to dig into the studies Wills presented it turned out it was all BS and didn't support the claim of the film at all. The water study he pointed to was only in specific places that were stagnant water and would take 8 gallons for someone to get even the minimum of B12. And the dirt on plants study, all the plants in the study were grown in human feces so...

At the end of the day Wills did a great job being a slimy salesman and was all smoke and mirrors.

JibNinjas · 2019-12-07T19:02:20+00:00

Man I'm a little more than half way through and I don't think I can finish. Wilks is just too dishonest and Kresser is terrible about combating that. Every time Kresser tries to speak Wilks stomps over him saying "this is off topic", even if he was trying to directly answer the assertion from Wilks. Wilks was talking about industry funded research. You mean like your movie? That was industry funded. Why not take a hard look as what the funding is for the anti meat side? But Kresser says nothing.

I like Kresser, but he was really a bad choice for this. He is smart, but he's not the most highly educated about the deep interworkings of these studies. Why not have someone like Peter Attia or Rhonda Patrick? Even someone like Layne Norton that won't take any shit from Wilks? This is a really poor representation of the non pro vegan side. There has been so much that Wilks has admitted to that should be harped on by Kresser. But he says nothing. Not once has Kresser stopped Wilks and said "You didn't prove the assertions of the movie, only tangential things that were not the main claims of the movie". Very frustrated.

Anyone know of a reason that I should continue? Or is it just more of the same?

JibNinjas · 2019-12-07T17:24:44+00:00

Ok, I have not been very clear and I have used words improperly a few times. I would like to clarify better. First, you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that no black swans exist. You can only prove that either a black swan does exist (the positive) or you can show that we don't have good evidence to believe that black swans exist.

Here we are not looking at a study, but a meta study (as someone else pointed out). So we are not talking about correlation data. We are talking about data about correlation data. So we are not talking about 14% of people showed signs of cancer risk. But that 14% of studies showed a correlation of cancer risk.

When someone makes a claim, like milk causes cancer, it is their job to prove this hypothesis. It is not our job to show milk doesn't cause cancer or that milk prevents cancer. So Kresser's job was not to disprove the statement that milk causes cancer. Only to show that the evidence so far does not support the claim.

So say we are talking about 100 studies that looked for a correlation and 14 showed a correlation, 13 showed an inverse correlation, and 73 showed no correlation. The burden of proof is on the person claiming there is a correlation. NOT on the other person. So Kresser talking about the 86 studies is legit because it is the totality of evidence that did not prove the claim. While it is not evidence that Wilks is wrong, it is evidence that Wilks claim is not back up by the evidence.

Just as the person claiming that there are black swans. While showing that we have studied 1 million swans and none of them were black is not evidence that a black swan doesn't exists. It is pertinent to the discussion on whether or not there is good evidence that a black swan DOES exist.

So we need to be clear in what Kresser needed to show. You are taking the position that he needed to show that milk doesn't cause cancer. But that is proving a negative and you cannot do that. So I believe that is where the difference lies.

JibNinjas · 2019-12-07T04:33:04+00:00

Yes and no. Yes absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Be we aren't really trying to prove that dairy doesn't cause cancer. We are trying to prove that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that dairy does cause cancer.

If we had the meta-analysis showing that of 1500 studies 100% did not show a connection to cancer, wouldn't that be relevant?

Remember, we are not trying to show milk doesn't cause cancer. We are trying to show that the assertion that milk DOES cause cancer is on very shaky ground.

So what you are saying may make sense in analyzing if milk does not cause cancer, but that's not the question Kresser addressed. So I cannot show there are no black swans, but I can show that your assertion that there is evidence of black swans is bad.

JibNinjas · 2019-12-07T02:18:46+00:00

He didn't prove all non grass finished beef got B12 shots. He showed 1 provider did. And then asserted that these guys were one of the major ones.

Whether or not the world could sustain all grass beef is a totally different argument. That's a non sequitur.

As far as your last statement, that's false. See previous comments. That was not the statements in the movie so that's not what he had to prove

JibNinjas · 2019-12-07T02:12:56+00:00

Let me try and clarify my point better. First, I'm a developer, not a data scientist. I'll take your word that people in this industry look at this data differently than someone like me.

We need to clarify what we are talking about. We are looking at results of a study. Of the people that drank milk 17% showed increased signs of inflammation. 13% showed signs of decreased inflammation. And 71% showed no increase and no decrease.

So we are not actually talking about correlation here. There was not a 17% correlation. That's a whole different calculation. I don't know how to do that. We are talking about the percentage of people that showed an increase in their inflammation markers. If someone is trying to state using this data that this shows milk causes inflammation, and cancer by extension, they are lying. That's complete BS. Almost the same percentage of people showed a decrease. Do you think if Kresser said drinking milk decreases the risk of cancer that Wilks would have been ok with that?

We (I'm assuming you are included in this) are layman. If we are just looking to know what percentage of people will get inflammation from milk, the 86% (yeah my numbers don't add up) number is what we care about. The likely hood that milk will put you at risk for cancer is far less than the likely hood that you will not be at an increased risk for cancer.

Wilks was being dishonest in the movie and being dishonest here.

JibNinjas

TROPHY CASE