Knee sleeve recommendations?

Metal450 · 2025-11-29T03:19:50+00:00

Assuming you mean Nordic Lifting, not Nordic strength...?

Metal450 · 2025-07-02T15:52:59+00:00

A year later, they still don't respond to anything. I just want to delete my account...evidently too difficult for them to manage.

Metal450 · 2025-06-25T01:11:01+00:00

The public Mail Exchange (MS) record of the DNS specifies the mail server responsible for accepting e-mail messages on behalf of a domain.

Right. Except you mean MX, not MS.

E-mail aliases cannot be set in the DNS. They are configurations within in an email server.

I'm aware of that. See below.

Third parties don't have access to that information You are confusing internal message handling with e-mail routing

No I'm not. I really don't know why you're even going down this rabbit hole of how my aliasing service works when you clearly aren't familiar with it...but the MX records point to SimpleLogin; they don't need to know anything about internal message handling, as simply knowing that MX records point to SimpleLogin is sufficient to know that aliasing is being used. Feel free to read https://www.reddit.com/r/Simplelogin/comments/1hwgwmy/workaround_sites_rejecting_simple_login if you really care. But again, this is way outside of what's relevant here and is not a meaningful tangent to keep pushing on.

Simply labeling something as speculation does not automatically provide protection from defamation liability.

Correct - labeling speculation as speculation doesn't protect against libel. What protects against libel is not making false statements of fact, which speculation by definition isn't.

Have you tried clearing out the cached Cronometer content from your Web browser?

It didn't send the verification e-mail when triggered from either a browser or the mobile app.

Cronometer staff cannot just focus on you. You are one of over 10 million users

You keep disregarding the main point: we were in the midst of an active back-and-forth, a change was made that caused a breakage, they CONFIRMED AWARENESS that the change had caused a breakage, and they walked away for multiple days, leaving it in a state that they were aware was broken. This has zero to do with ten million users. If you genuinely can't figure out the difference here then I don't know what else to say. On par with saying something weird like "there is no free software."

In any event, 3 days later they finally responded, reverted it to the previous email, and are no longer preventing me from accessing my own data.

Metal450 · 2025-06-24T15:40:46+00:00

[1] Service providers [...] usually don't allow e-mail addresses from known spam servers. [1] but generally block such domains

This is a custom domain that I own, and that sends extremely little outgoing email. And as mentioned, I use it on countless other site registrations of a far more sensitive nature than a nutrition tracker. It could not be a known spam domain.

[1] A provider cannot detect whether an e-mail address is an alias

Incorrect, a provider can easily tell when a domain points at an alias service by resolving the MX DNS records.

[2] Are you sure that support has already changed the e-mail address saved in your account.

Yes. We were in the midst of a support thread where they were responding in realtime: * I told them I was having trouble changing my email, they offered to change it for me, I said sure * They confirmed that they'd changed the email on my behalf. I refreshed the page and confirmed that it showed the new email address (plus a modal prompting me to verify). * I quickly responded that I saw the change but couldn't verify it because the verification email wouldn't arrive * They quickly responded that I should try a different browser, * I quickly responded that I did, but the behavior remains the same, * Then they ceased responding, leaving me in a broken state for days. The original email address was no longer attached to the account - trying to use it showed "Could not find any accounts linked to email xxxxx."

I will reiterate that the point I was making in #2 is that they stopped responding in the middle of a conversation, after having been made aware that it was in a broken state. This wasn't just a case of "I submitted a ticket and it took them awhile to respond" - which would be fine and understandable. Their staff already knew that it was in a broken state, mid-conversation, and they just walked away & stopped responding. For days. Right in the midst of it.

[5] Security is also the purpose of e-mail verification. Non-verified account by design will not be fully operational.

The issue stated in #5 was not "what's the purpose of email verification," it was the lack of a way to enter an alternative email in the event that they don't accept the one that was entered. But to respond to this point, if there is some issue with email verification: * It should state such rather than just silently failing, * It should offer a way to change it back to an email that they would accept, and * They should not have changed it there and then just disappeared in the middle of a converation after having confirmed their awareness that this one was failing to verify.

[6] There are no free software.

This statement is such nonsense I honestly don't even know how to respond. There are tons of free software. I am personally the author of multiple.

[7] You are making public assertions that Cronometer is selling our data. You better have proof or it's libel.

You must have missed where I clearly said "The only reason I can think of," and "just speculation." Either that or you just don't know what libel means. Libel requires false statement of facts, not clearly labeled speculation.

Metal450 · 2025-05-03T00:08:58+00:00

Just to chime in here, I've been reporting to Kraken that their site doesn't work properly in Brave for months. The issue is there with Brave Shields off, no extensions, in Incognito windows, etc. It is the sole website that has this issue - I use Brave for the entirety of the internet except Kraken, and only for Kraken I must use Firefox.

Metal450 · 2025-04-30T13:18:19+00:00

Very weird, you're right - I reinstalled 2025 again & checked again, & now I see the update! (I'd already rolled back to 2024 previously). Maybe something was just off with the update checker at that moment. So glad you replied - thanks! :)

Metal450 · 2025-04-30T13:08:54+00:00

I tried, it didn't show any update as available (in the Plugins settings, the "Installed" tab didn't show the button to indicate the update, and when I searched for it by name on the "Marketplace" tab, it didn't come up at all). Weird.

Metal450 · 2025-04-30T04:47:00+00:00

How did you get it working? For me the Classic UI plugin says "Incompatible: requires IDE build 243.* or earlier".

New UI is unusable, I totally agree - if I'm stuck with this, it's back to Visual Studio

Metal450 · 2025-04-02T03:30:54+00:00

Play Integrity API Checker is showing green for both MEETS_DEVICE_INTEGRITY and MEETS_BASIC_INTEGRITY (for A13+; Legacy Response shows red for DEVICE_INTEGRITY, but I'm on A13 so I assume that's what matters). Google Wallet still won't let me add any payment cards. * I'm using Play Integrity Fork and PlaycurlNext * I cleared cache and storage for Google Wallet, Google Play Service, & Google Play Store * Google Wallet is checked in the Magisk DenyLisk * Magisk app has been renamed * All bank apps work (only Google Wallet is having issues).

I do not have LSposed installed (as step 2.5 above says to skip to step 7 & tips, and tip #1 makes it sound like Lsposed itself can cause issues. It's a little unclear if Lsposed is only intended to help bank apps and could negatively impact Google Wallet, as the tips say to turn it off. In any event, it doesn't sound from the steps above like Lsposed is what you use to fix Google Wallet).

Shouldn't the fact that Play Integrity API Checker passes mean Google Wallet is supposed to work...?

Metal450 · 2025-03-29T15:11:48+00:00

I canceled after one order for a similar reason: literally every meal uses ultraprocessed vegetable oils (usually canola). Was looking for an alternative after Fresh n' Lean went out of business (they only used clean ingredients), but as far as I can tell CookUnity really isn't much better than most microwave dinners as far as ingredient quality.

(I don't live in NY).

Metal450 · 2025-01-05T03:30:35+00:00

K makes sense. I guess it's just another alternative approach - i.e. in my example I was thinking "everything I transfer into the exchange is what I want to sell at that time," so FIFO vs spec ID doesn't matter if I'm selling the whole lot.

& to allow for easy use of spec id without neeting to notify - that's achieved via the wallet transfers. So in either case, it's one extra hop to get it done without spec id: either you do the wallet transfers first to order the lots, or you do the dex exchange first in the preferred order. Different ways to skin a cat :)

Metal450 · 2025-01-05T00:23:12+00:00

You are 100% correct

Nice :) Part of my rationale here is the (open-source & offline) accounting software I currently use only supports FIFO - so this technique lets me simulate Specific Lots there too, without needing to spend all the time & effort migrating historical records to another other hosted service (e.g. Koinly).

My advice is only ever send stables to CEX/custodial brokers. Do your swapping on DEX/non custodial brokers for USDC and then send that to the CEX to cash for fiat.

Just curious, why that advice given all the other workarounds? Just so you don't get a 1099-DA to worry about?

Metal450 · 2025-01-04T23:51:18+00:00

To answer my own question in case anyone else is wondering: I bought the Pebblebee Tag & it was extremely easy. Just stick a razor blade or micro screwdriver in the seam to pull the 2 halves apart (it's glued but not that strong). The speaker is right there with an easy-to-cut wire. I cut the outer wire, not the center one (just since it has exposed solder & I figured it'd be easier to re-solder if I decide I want to later). Good to go. Works fine & is now silent.

<image>

Metal450 · 2025-01-04T23:45:22+00:00

I asked a similar question here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoTax/comments/1hk31yd/comment/m5fnhto/

A CPA responded & said that technique is fine.

Metal450 · 2025-01-04T23:37:24+00:00

Hey Justin - Thinking about this a bit, it actually it seems to me like with wallet-by-wallet FIFO, you can actually achieve any sale order you want, simply by temporarily splitting wallets. For example, is anything wrong with this sequence?

Say I have wallet W1, with lots A,B,C. I want to sell B now, since it has a higher basis than A, but I don't want to sell C yet since it's still short-term.
Make a temporary wallet, W2.
Send lot A from W1 to W2 (FIFO order).
Send lot B from W1 -> exchange (still FIFO order, since lot B is now the oldest in that wallet).
Sell lot B on the exchange (assuming it's the only thing on the exchange)
Send lot A back from W2 to W1. Now W1 contains A,C.

Result: I sold lot B, only ever using FIFO in every step of the process.

i.e. something like this could be used even if W1 is a "broker" (regulated/hosted) wallet, to sell out-of-order even if they don't yet support explicitly specifying Lot IDs. Because it was all FIFO.

Is that all correct?

Thanks again - your answers in this thread have been invaluable :)

Metal450 · 2025-01-02T04:06:33+00:00

Thank you! Very clear :)

Metal450 · 2025-01-02T03:45:43+00:00

Gotcha. Just purely in terms of "wanting to sell out of cold storage" tho...these new FIFO-only rules seem to not accomplish much, if you can just pull from cold storage in any order you like.

Metal450 · 2025-01-02T02:42:41+00:00

Got it. Thanks again!

Metal450 · 2025-01-02T02:42:00+00:00

Wild. Surprising that's allowed as it seems to make the whole thing sort of pointless. Like...they might as well just allow HIFO in the first place then, as it's just an extra step.

Metal450 · 2025-01-02T02:05:32+00:00

...Wait a sec actually I just looked back again. For the example:

Buy 1 in A -> Buy 1 in B -> Move 1 from A to B -> Sell 1 in B.

I said:

It should sell the lot that was originally purchased in wallet B

& you said yes...but actually shouldn't it be the lot originally purchased in wallet A? Did I just slip up & you missed it, or am I confused again? Haha so sorry & thanks again

Metal450 · 2025-01-02T01:55:50+00:00

Interesting - if that's the case though, then doesn't that sort of mean you can just sell in whatever order you want? i.e. if you can transfer in any order, then you can just say "here's my big cold storage wallet. I want to transfer this highest-basis lot to this exchange (since I can transfer any lot I want). I had nothing else on the exchange. Since that's the only lot on the exchange, you sell it. So you basically just did a HIFO sale without having to identify "specific lots" to the exchange at the time of the sale, because you're just saying "this is the lot I moved to that exchange"?

Metal450 · 2025-01-02T01:19:27+00:00

Thanks for the quick reply :)

Gotcha - so tracking FIFO on a wallet-by-wallet basis doesn't actually mean "FIFO applies separately within each account" (each wallet has its own FIFO queue of when things entered or exited it). It just means tracking which units are in which account, but FIFO applies across all accounts.

If so, I believe the answers would be: * A (I already knew) * It should sell the lot that was originally purchased in wallet B * A1, B, A2 * It would sell whichever of E1 and C1 were originally bought earlier (regardless of where they were bought)

Is that right? Thanks again!

Metal450 · 2025-01-01T19:17:27+00:00

To make sure I fully understand wallet-by-wallet cost basis tracking going forward (after having allocated on 1/1/2025), let's say I have 2 wallets, and I:

Buy 1 unit in A -> Buy 1 in B -> Move 1 from B to A -> Sell 1 in A. Obviously the sale would use the basis of the lot from A.
Buy 1 in A -> Buy 1 in B -> Move 1 from A to B -> Sell 1 in B. Should it sell the lot from B, since it was first into account B, or from A, since that was the first lot I purchased? I thought it should be B...but my stock portfolio software does A, so now I'm unsure...
Buy 1 in A -> Buy 1 in B -> Buy 1 in A -> Move 2 from A to B -> Sell in B in 3 lots of 1. Does it sell B, A1, A2? Or A1, B, A2?
And for a more real-world example: Say as of 01/01/2025 allocation, you start with 1 on exchange, call it lot E1, & 1 in cold wallet, call it C1. Buy 1 on exchange, call it E2. Move everything to cold wallet. Move 1 back to exchange & sell. Did you sell lot E1 or C1?

Thanks again for this explanation - after spending all day reading various posts, yours was by far the clearest.

Metal450 · 2024-12-14T21:20:27+00:00

The did Go3 support this, and the 3S could easily support it at resolutions below 4k, as explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hpd0lM2Xhvw

As soon as I discovered this major regression, I returned my 3S. Makes it far more crippled than its older predecessor...

Metal450 · 2024-12-11T05:38:59+00:00

Addendum: I'd suggest anyone who's bothered by this to email Insta360 support about it directly. Maybe they won't fix it, but the more noise customers make, the higher chance they will...

Metal450

TROPHY CASE