shackled

I think bigots deserve the same level of disdain as racists and/or antisemites. If racist/racism has become a common and accepted terminology to describe people that hate based on a common trait other than race then I stand corrected. Sorry my attempt to clarify someone elses point has lead you to believe I hold hatred for any group based on their race, religion, or other inherited trait. And sorry if I walked into a talking point from racists, I tend not to interact with them online or offline.

If I hold hatred towards anyone it’s bigots and racists. What I’ll tell you I’ve witnessed is the racism against Ethiopian Jews by Israeli Jews when they fled to a country that was supposedly their promise land. So when trying to have an intelligent discussion about this topic I do think it’s fair to state bigots in Ethiopia forced people of their own race out of the country only for those that fled to go and face racists in a country that supoosedly shared their religious values. I hope this clarifies why I thought the distinction might be worthwhile. I understand language is ever evolving but I think there is a distinction between the origin of a word that is hundreds of years old verses what is still listed in most dictionaries. Again I’m not rejecting the strong presence of antisemitism throughout the world, I’m saying I see it as a subclass of bigotry the same as racism. Also again, whether I call someone an antisemite or a bigot I’ll hold the same level of disdain for them.

I can only out words on the internet and it up to you to believe them but I hope you understand I wasn’t coming from a place of any form of bigotry.

There is a word for that though, bigot. Racism is effectively a subclass of bigotry that is more specific. If we have a word for it already we should use that instead.

That’s why we have modifiers. Pan fry (egg), stir fry (fried rice), and deep fry (chicken). There is even flash fry and now air fry.

The best I can recommend is probably projectors. They seem to be the last bastion of non-smart/internet displays with large screen sizes.

With respect, there really aren’t non-smart TVs. I searched when I upgraded and the best I could do was the LG C series which has webOS as it’s platform but didn’t require me to connect to the Internet to start using it. It let me skip all connection options after selecting the basic audio and picture display settings. The webOS is the default home screen if you start without having an active HDMI input but it mainly shows input options and other settings. The rest of the items are default apps which are non-functional with the home screen stating “Connect to Internet to access smart functions”.

Not sure what you mean by “seek access through open wifi” but on my TV once I declined Internet connectivity it hasn’t requested access after giving me a warning that firmware updates wouldnt be available through internet. I also have Raspberry Pi that works as an internal DNS and ad block for my home network and I haven’t seen any pings from hardware other than the ones on my networks approved list (tracked by MAC address) The TV has a USB port so manual firmware update is possible if you want that. It has also never requested access for Bluetooth. I’m not aware of HDMI providing Internet connectivity so I can’t make a statement there other than my TV hasn’t requested anything of the sort. All of the connectivity goggles are off in the TVs settings.

Unfortunately the ship for non-smart home TVs sailed a long time ago. Especially if you want quality 4K panels. There might be a shot at some cheaper ones but those will have subpar panels. The downside has also become that most cheap TVs now depend on the “smart functions” (aka ad revenue) to subsidize the cost of their low prices.

Asus zen phone had received great reviews. You can use it as stock Android or with Asus’ slight customizations. It’s on the smaller side but it’s a good price.

It was disappointing to go through the saga of thinking I found a semi reliable podcast regarding health and current research, to finding some weak episodes, and finally arriving at the conclusion that his methodology is sloppy at best. The Dr Lustig episode was especially egregious. He let that guy make some of the most outlandish claims that I’ve heard. He made up statements about how FDA nutrition labels are required which was easily dismissible by a quick look at the FDA website. That was more or less the final nail in the coffin for me.

The biggest indicator to the scientific weakness of his podcast is the rate of release. It is not possible to do weekly releases on the complex topics he covers AND maintain the level of scientific scrutiny required to vet the referenced research or guest.