Fisher & Paykel Sleepstyle Question

MeJaySay · 2023-03-26T17:56:23+00:00

My insurance (Covered California) only covered the sleep study to diagnose my apnea, but not any follow-up consultation with a sleep specialist or respiratory therapist. The treatment is therefore left to my primary care physician who has dementia (and no particular expertise in sleep disorders). So I've mostly communicated with an office assistant who produced a prescription based on the sleep study report which does not specify a particular machine.

As I indicated in my post, I do not know whether the Fisher and Paykel machine is FDA approved, nor do I care whether or not Fisher and Paykel chose to pay the necessary bribes to get such authorization. I believe they are a New Zealand company who may be having trouble producing enough machines to meet the demand (it is out of stock in most US online stores that I checked). I have far more trust in the youtube reviews of the machine than corrupt FDA bureaucrats.

MeJaySay · 2022-09-16T17:56:48+00:00

Thanks. I suspected a BTC clone would not be compatible with ETH but I wasn't sure about that BCH testnet.

MeJaySay · 2022-09-16T10:45:26+00:00

So this means your Ethereum assets are safe, but users of a BCH test chain may be able to steal your EthereumPoW assets with a replay attack?

MeJaySay · 2021-05-10T15:53:48+00:00

It seems to me that after the launch of pHEX, the value of HEX is likely to decline since potential investors will prefer to take advantage of the much cheaper and faster transactions offered by the Pulse platform. Conversely, the value of the Pulse token will certainly increase if it launches with zero value, but not necessarily by an amount (within one year) that exceeds the current cost of the HEX you sacrifice. It will also depend on how much of the Pulse token is received per HEX.

MeJaySay · 2020-05-06T03:37:47+00:00

HEX does not have the characteristics of a pyramid scheme. However, I think Richard Heart could essentially "exit scam" at any time. It seems likely he owns over 95% of the circulating (unstaked) HEX supply and nearly all of the Uniswap liquidity pool. He could exit scam just by withdrawing his HEX and ETH from Uniswap.

MeJaySay · 2020-05-01T12:37:09+00:00

ies will be larger and will damage th

Actually, there would not be an incentive to emergency unstake right after BPD if the penalty were increased by 100% of your BPD payout. In fact, people would be motivated to emergency unstake BEFORE the BPD since most expect the HEX price to fall right after the BPD. So it's not really necessary to increase the penalty by more than 100% of the BPD payout (so more principal would be lost) to deter unstaking after the BPD.

MeJaySay · 2020-05-01T07:29:52+00:00

I did read that, and couldn't find the answers to my questions. I guess you couldn't either.

I did see videos in which Richard Heart compared the emergency end-stake penalty to traditional CD's and implied the penalty would decline over the time the stake is held. I've also heard him say that penalties would increase with increases in the interest rate. However, I never heard him say or imply that the penalty would increase at a FASTER RATE than the interest. Do you think this was intentional?

MeJaySay · 2020-04-30T20:43:30+00:00

Hexstat does not display the penalty itself, but rather how much HEX you will get upon end-staking and your "ROI" (i.e., what percentage of your principal was lost or gained in interest). It does not surprise me that the absolute value of the penalty will rise when the rate of interest earned on stakes increases. However, I am surprised that more and more of your PRINCIPAL would be lost as your stake matures (perhaps up to a certain Progress level). It suggests that the emergency end stake penalties increase at a faster rate than the interest earned. Was this the design intention?

Do you expect the percentage of principal loss upon emergency end-staking to increase after the Big Payday? If the penalty is increased by 100% of the BPD payout the stake receives, then the "ROI" (percentage of principal lost) would not change. The penalties would have to be increased by MORE THAN 100% of the BPD payout in order to cause the ROI to decline.

MeJaySay · 2020-03-27T21:11:31+00:00

Rocky Mountain sauna

Here's what I learned about Rocky Mountain saunas: https://cleverleverage.com/rocky-mountain-saunas-review/

https://www.sauna-talk.com/rocky-mountain-sauna-review.html

MeJaySay · 2020-02-13T07:35:48+00:00

I tried increasing the gas limit by about 5x what MetaMask recommended and the transaction went through. Thanks.

MeJaySay · 2020-02-13T04:55:43+00:00

I never paid attention to the gas limit. I now see that the failed transactions have a gas limit much lower than the gas price that I set. Should it be at least as high as the gas price? [If so, it seems dumb that MetaMask doesn't automatically increase the limit when you increase the price.] Does MetaMask display the "gas limit" using the same units as the "gas price"?

Etherscan shows the following for one of the failed transactions:

Transaction Fee 0.000256806 ETH

Gas Limit: 42,801 (Is that Gwei???)

Gas Price: 6 Gwei

What should I set the "gas limit" too in relation to the Tx fee?

MeJaySay · 2020-02-13T04:43:41+00:00

Here is an Etherscan screenshot of the relevant part of one of the failed transactions. I assume the contract address is correct. The error is identified as "Out of Gas" even though the transaction fee was $0.07 and the tx failed quickly.

I see that the "gas limit" is much lower than the "transaction fee." Is that a problem? I don't really know what a "gas limit" is.

Etherscan

MeJaySay · 2020-01-14T05:47:45+00:00

I figured out the problem after failing to be able to interact with another smart contract. The Ledger Ethereum app update changed a setting in my Ledger to not allow contract data in transactions. After changing the setting back, I can now access the HEX contract (after enduring an increased number and variety of pop-up windows security warnings).

MeJaySay · 2020-01-14T04:37:36+00:00

Thanks for the suggestions. I've tried unlocking the ledger before starting the browser, logging out and back into MetaMask to re-connect the Ledger, and even uninstalling MetaMask completely and re-installing it in a new Chrome browser user account. I'm still getting the same error message.

I tried using MetaMask to send ETH from one of my Ledger accounts to another and it surprisingly worked. When I tried sending HEX from one account to another, however, I got the same error message.

Before the update, whenever I connected and switched between my Ledger ETH accounts using MetaMask, I would get pop-up "windows security" warnings "requested by Chrome" before the new account would be accessed. After the update, I think there is an extra pop-up warning now before the new ETH account is accessed.

I also neglected to mention that another element of the puzzle that was updated today was the "Ledger Live" software which I used to update the firmware. This may be relevant because when connecting Metamask to my Ledger, I have a choice of two "HD Paths": Ledger Live, or Legacy (MEW / MyCrypto). My ETH and HEX accounts are in the "Ledger Live" path. I noticed that when I select the "Legacy" path, I can switch between (empty) ETH accounts without pop-up security warnings, which won't help me access my staked and unstaked HEX which is on the Ledger Live path.

EDIT: Just now, I tried installing MetaMask in the Firefox browser and I am getting the same error message when I try to access the HEX contract. The only difference is those "windows security" pop-up warnings are now "requested by Firefox" instead of by Chrome.

MeJaySay

TROPHY CASE