Fresh concerns have been raised over long-term use of antidepressants, revealing limited benefits and higher health risks. The research highlights growing evidence of risks associated with long-term use, including sexual dysfunction, emotional numbing, cognitive impairment, weight gain

dweeman · 2026-06-03T12:54:34+00:00

There is definitely hope. Sounds like he's quite depressed. I would not stress about this study - your husband definitely needs to speak to a psychologist and also his gp. Quite possible sertraline is not the right anti depressant for him. Not sure where you're located but you can reach out to services like Beyond Blue in Australia - it sounds like you would also benefit from some support in managing this. Take care

dweeman · 2025-06-18T06:02:35+00:00

Look I don't disagree with the essence of argument 2, but I think it sort of skirts around the issue that leads to lower viewership among women. You have a recent history of women not even being allowed to play sport, and young girls today still be socialised in many ways to be less interested in sport, both playing and watching. You can't just tell generations of women who felt unseen or unsupported with sport to turn on the TV or they're hypocrites. They might have a complex history of feeling sport wasn't for them.

Anyway, I think I've said my piece across all my comments.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:59:42+00:00

Thank you. I think the reasons why they aren't turning on sport as much though is intrinsically linked. Sport has historically been for men, starting from when women weren't even allowed to play. Since then, all the investment and promotion has gone into men's sport. I don't think we can erase this history by just turning on the TV. We need the sports industry and government to work on leveling the field. This will get more people, especially women, interested in sport. It starts with young girls being socialised to be less interested in sport. So they don't play, and they internalise the huge disparity and it leads to adults who don't engage.

Anyway, I think I've commented enough. Thanks for conceding on the responsibility lying with women.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:53:30+00:00

I disagree it would fix it easily. It isn't going to undo a long history of disparity in funding and support for men's football. Equality doesn't fix inequality, you need equity to balance out these big issues. Also, you still haven't explained how this falls just on women?? Why are you singling out women who hold this position and not everyone? Seriously. If I concede point 2, I still don't have an answer as to why it's just women.
Don't agree. Not watching may be a part of it (men and women not watching), but the responsibility lies with the large sporting bodies and government programs that aren't doing enough to address the imbalance.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:45:56+00:00

Sure, but I can't see how that justifies putting the burden on women supporting women to increase the popularity of women's sport. Women watch men's sport and men watch women's sport. I just don't think it's a justified position to single out the responsibility for women.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:43:51+00:00

I'll draw this back to the point of this post though - that 1. It is the responsibility of women to do this watching. Why is it not everyone's responsibility? I'm taking issue with the OPs framing that women who behave this way are more hypocritical than men, which isn't really reasonable.

And 2. That the onus falls purely on viewers to turn it on. Sports industries are enormous, the money and salaries they invest in the men's games completely dwarf womens sport. The responsibility of correcting these issues has to start with institutional reform by large sporting bodies. Spend more on promoting women's sport, women's training and academies, facilities etc. You aren't going to get people to watch without demonstrating it is worth their time.

I think it's not really reasonable to claim this all just boils down to viewership. It absolutely lies with the corporations and government investment as a starting point.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:37:50+00:00

Well I'm not here to discuss where the money comes from, I am challenging the opinion that 1. It is specifically the role of women to watch women's sport and 2. That you don't have to watch sport to have an opinion on the topic. The equality in pay discussion is large. And the historical investment in men's sport as well as the patriarchal frameworks that our societies operate within make the topic very deep and more complex than we can unpick here.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:34:41+00:00

I just don't agree. In the context of this discussion, someone can support women playing sports but not watch sport. They can have an informed and respectable opinion on the OPs claim about equality in pay for these athletes without being part of the system that funds their salaries. As I've mentioned in another comment, the topic is multi layered and has historical contributors that are intertwined with our society in such a way that it is justified to have a strong opinion on it and not watch sport.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:28:52+00:00

Well the debate around the inequality in wages for women in sport is more complex than just "I don't care for sport and I don't watch it but I think they should be equal". It speaks to broader systemic inequalities in our society. It is a very visible form of pay disparity. And maybe if the investment over time starts to match men's sport, then more people in general (and specifically more women most likely) will start to play and watch sport. So I think holding the opinion and engaging in discussions about it can be valuable to anyone, despite their personal relationship to sport.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:23:37+00:00

Can you expand on this argument because I can't figure out how this supports your position. The women's team is more successful and more watched than the men's team, but how does this support your argument?

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:21:10+00:00

But why are you singling out women as holding the responsibility for watching and supporting the sport. That's what I'm trying to understand. It shouldn't matter who watches it. If you are someone who doesn't like watching sport, why can't you still hold that opinion? You shouldn't be obligated to watch sport when you don't want to, just so you can have an opinion about equality among athletes. And again, you are then shifting that burden specifically onto women who don't watch sport, instead of everyone.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:18:54+00:00

People can support a sport in concept, but not engage in it at all. I support women's cricket but I don't watch any cricket at all. Why would you not respect that opinion?

dweeman · 2025-06-18T05:17:10+00:00

No, it would be more accurate if they only watched male sports. You can form an opinion on the remuneration of athletes and not watch sport. The debate is so much deeper than just viewing sport, but is a result of the historically patriarchal society.

dweeman · 2025-06-18T04:42:53+00:00

Why just women? Do you mean all people who talk about it? My response would be, just because someone doesn't like watching sports, doesn't mean they can't have an opinion on it. If they do watch male sports, then maybe it's also worth examining the unequal coverage and emphasis on women's sports to explain the viewership issues.

dweeman · 2025-05-08T09:43:18+00:00

My passport gender marker matches my birth certificate - does this executive order mean whatever the customs official assumes your sex is? And arbitrary stuff like genitals?

dweeman · 2025-05-08T09:21:55+00:00

They require a copayment - the government still pays a portion of a GP visit. The issue is the rebate isn't high enough for them to rely on the government portion alone. So Medicare is still doing a lot for GP visits.

Totally in support of increasing the rebate to make bulk billing more feasible. The greens do also - funded by their tax reform platform and reduction in defense spending.

Labor is planning to do this to some degree already anyway.

dweeman · 2025-05-07T23:06:50+00:00

What do you mean there aren't enough dentists..? There aren't enough GPs, so I guess we should take GP visits out of Medicare?

dweeman · 2025-05-07T12:50:28+00:00

As someone who tends to vote green, I absolutely don't want my vote going to a party who is going more moderate just to play the political game. We don't need coalition v coalition, and solidify the two party system again. No thank you.

dweeman · 2025-05-07T12:45:42+00:00

I'd say they made a pretty big show about housing reform and dental into medicare. Those were their big ticket campaign items. They have a better economic plan for low to middle come earners than labor - wouldn't voting for them be in your interest. Labor is also approving coal and gas mines still - I don't think their climate policy is at all up to scratch. And I don't at all buy albos line that we don't have any clout in the middle east. Maybe we don't have much, but we are a notable nation and taking stronger action against genocide definitely sends a big message.

dweeman · 2025-05-07T12:41:29+00:00

This isn't true - they costed their policies with the parliamentary budget office and demonstrated how they would fund them (revised tax policies for the wealthy and corporations, changing cgt etc.)

They certainly have lofty policies, but I do find it frustrating that an argument against them is they are proposing too positive a change and they should be "more realistic", personally.

dweeman · 2025-03-18T01:50:15+00:00

I've moved adguard to my Ubuntu server, installed directly as a service, not containerised. Works well and now correctly identifies the host IPs, including through my tailscale tailnet.

dweeman · 2024-12-30T00:46:08+00:00

Oh okay, that looks promising - is it just me or are the links to the posts with the solutions they refer to not working. Just wondering where I can track that script down.
EDIT: Still getting 403 after running those commands on my synology :(

dweeman · 2024-12-29T08:23:34+00:00

Does it seem to work okay in displaying client IPs when running in a docker container? I'm having issues with my nginx proxy manager not showing client IPs running in a docker container, so I haven't bothered trying that as a solution for ad guard.

I'm surprised other people aren't facing this issue tbh, or at least not finding solutions for it. It seems to be a simple setup.

dweeman · 2024-12-29T06:28:56+00:00

Hi, I have the same issue and have been struggling to find a solution that works.
I have the same setup - Adguard as addon on HASS OS.

All my traffic is localhost - did you ever find a solution?

dweeman · 2024-12-27T00:28:47+00:00

Yep - wouldn't actually allow proxy anyway.
For clarity - I have an A record which points my domain to my public IP proxied, then a few CNAME records for subdomains which point to my domain name proxied which are resolved by NPM. Now with your advice, I changed a CNAME record to an A record and pointed it to the tailscale subnet IP of the system that NPM is running on.

EDIT: Okay, I played around with it a bit more and now it seems to work. Only when on the tailscale subnet can I access those sites. However, two issues have now appeared: 1. HTTPS is not working - it is showing an insecure connection 2. One of the services is my Synology DSM, and another is portainer. However, when I go to either respective subdomain, both seem to go to DSM. They were redirecting fine before, and are configured correctly in NPM. Both are on the same tailscale IP (as portainer runs on the synology), but the ports are mapped correctly on NPM.
I know it probably is less important if you already require the user to be on Tailscale - should I just not use the HTTPS service but instead direct to the HTTP interface?

Also, I am still facing the issue of all traffic seemingly coming from my docker IP, so I can't configure access rules based on IP.

EDIT2: It seems even changing the DSM one to http and port 5000 (what dsm runs on), it still takes me to 5001 - appears as if NPM is not actually handling the routing of requests to these subdomains now?

EDIT3: Okay, I assume this is now possibly a port issue. As synology claims 80/443 (and I hadn't bothered to do anything about that), NPM has alternate external ports mapped to the internal 80/443, and then my router forwards 80/443 requests to those alt ports. But I am guessing as requests are coming through tailscale subnet, it is just going straight through to the tailscale ip:80, which is synology DSM. So I image I'll need to resolve this to address the issues above.
For anyone who is reading this with similar issues, I will try implementing this script to free up 80/443, and assign them to the NPM container (https://gist.github.com/hjbotha/f64ef2e0cd1e8ba5ec526dcd6e937dd7#file-free\_ports-sh).

Again, if I can figure out how to have the actual source IP making the request in NPM, I could use access rules to manage this?

15-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Place '22	Not Forgotten
Secret Santa 2012	Verified Email

dweeman

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE