Collin (Daveed Diggs) must make it through his final three days of probation for a chance at a new beginning. He and his troublemaking childhood best friend, Miles (Rafael Casal), work as movers and are forced to watch their old neighborhood become a trendy spot in the rapidly gentrifying Bay Area. When a life-altering event causes Collin to miss his mandatory curfew, the two men struggle to maintain their friendship as the changing social landscape exposes their differences. Lifelong friends Daveed Diggs and Rafael Casal co-wrote and star in this timely and wildly entertaining story about friendship and the intersection of race and class set against the backdrop of Oakland. Bursting with energy, style and humor, Blindspotting, boldly directed by Carlos López Estrada in his feature film debut, is a provocative hometown love letter that glistens with humanity.
West Oakland. Collin Hopkins, a black man who works for the Commander Moving Company as a mover, is a convicted felon on the last three days of his one year parole. Among the many restrictions contained within his parole are living in a halfway house which has its own additional rules, having curfew, not being allowed outside of Alameda County, and no possession of firearms, contravention of any of these items which could extend the length of his parole or worse send him back to prison. Collin, whose felony was largely a matter of unexpected circumstance, wants to do the right thing and lead a straight life. And despite having made it through the first three hundred sixty-two days of his parole, it isn’t a guarantee that he will make it to the end clear, let alone make to the end at all due to the environment in which he lives, which includes people like him of a lower socioeconomic standing having to adjust to the gentrification happening within the community. One of the larger threats is his association with Miles Jones, his married best friend since they were kids and his moving partner. Miles, a Caucasian, feels like he has something to prove being white and living in West Oakland, something that Collin inherently doesn’t have to prove being black. But what could be the biggest threat to Collin is being haunted in witnessing a white police officer shoot a fleeing black man to death in the back late in the evening of the third to last day of his parole, being shot for no reason by the police something that black people like Collin face every day. Through it all, Collin tries to negotiate his relationship with Val, his girlfriend before his incarceration and the dispatcher at Commander, she who is taking more outward steps to improve her life to match that gentrification which may not include associating personally with someone like Collin, especially in light of having seen the aftermath of what sent him to prison.
Learning how to last longer in bed is one of the most common reasons why men seek out my sex therapy services. Just about every man worries about orgasming too quickly, regardless of the actual amount of time he tends to last. Fortunately, there are a few straightforward, actionable strategies for lasting longer during sex.
Change Your Masturbation Habits
Your masturbation habits play an enormous role in what partnered sex is like for you. Unfortunately, most men don’t seem to realize this. If you want to learn how to last longer in bed, you have to take an honest look at your masturbation habits. Here are some dynamics to address:
How long you masturbate
Most guys masturbate to get the job done. It’s a purely utilitarian experience, usually accomplished as quickly as possible. (It may also be a pattern that stemmed from your early childhood experiences, trying to masturbate quickly before your parents walked in on you.) But if you masturbate quickly, you’re training your body to reach orgasm quickly. Instead, you want to try to draw out your sessions and make them last much longer. Think about how long you’d like to last with a partner, and be thoughtful about that timeline when you masturbate.
How focused you are on orgasm
If you’re a utilitarian masturbator, you probably also aim to take a straight path to orgasm. But again, this only serves to teach your body to take a straight path to orgasm when you’re with a partner. Instead, try to build some teasing into your masturbation practice. Think of arousal on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being barely turned on and 10 being orgasm. Get yourself to a 6, then back down to a 3, then back up to a 7, then down to a 5, then back to a 6, then down to a 2, then up to an 8, and so on. (It doesn’t have to be that exact pattern; that’s just an example.)
Find your point of no return
If you aim for an immediate orgasm, you probably have no idea what happens in your body in the moments leading up to an orgasm (otherwise called your “point of no return”). That means you’re likely to get caught off guard by an orgasm when you’re with a partner. When you masturbate, try to get a better sense of what happens in your body as you near an orgasm.
It’s 2018, and you’re not very familiar with technology. Where do you start?
While there are tons of gadgets and services out there vying for your attention and your dollars, there are a handful of “essential” technologies that are absolutely worth investing in, as they make your life easier in significant ways.
Here’s your guide to all the essential technologies worth your money in 2018.
A quality smartphone
A quality smartphone is one of the best investments you can make. Smartphones are the most personal computing devices we own. You can use them for just about everything: They’re phones, obviously, but they’re also cameras, calculators, and full-blown computers that can fit in your pocket or bag. They’re the Swiss Army knives of the future.
The biggest choice you’ll make is actually pretty simple: Which operating system do you prefer? Most smartphones either run iOS — which is operated by Apple — or Android, which is designed by Google and tweaked (slightly or a lot) depending on the phone you buy.
If you like iOS, that means you’re getting an iPhone. You can’t go wrong with any of the new iPhones, including the $750 iPhone XR coming this month or $1,000 iPhone XS, but the older models like the iPhone 7, which starts at $450, are still an incredible deal.
If you like Android, you have a ton of options, but popular picks are the affordable OnePlus 6, which starts at $530, and the Galaxy S9 and Note 9 phones from Samsung, which start at $720 and $1,000, respectively. We’re also expecting new Pixel 3 phones from Google this month.
Streaming devices are a worthy investment for any TV owner in 2018. Streaming devices, in short, open up the possibilities for your TV. Most streaming devices support popular streaming apps like Netflix and Hulu, but depending on the company that makes your device, you’ll also typically have access to an online store, like Apple’s iTunes Store or Google’s Play Store. So, if you purchased movies, TV shows, or games through any of those stores, you’ll be able to access them on your TV.
An X-ray for knee pain. A CT scan for a head injury. Mammograms every other year, starting at age 50. Over a typical lifetime of radiation exposure from medical tests, a person can start to wonder: How much is too much?
There’s no formula for answering that, experts say, in part because the health effects of radiation don’t add up in a linear way. And while massive doses of radiation are known to be harmful, the small doses used in routine tests are usually safe, especially compared with other health-care choices people make without thinking twice.
“Radiation does have some risk,” says Russ Ritenour, a medical physicist at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. “But it is important for medicine. And in most cases, the risk is quite small compared to the risk of taking too much Advil over your life and other things like that.”
Ionizing radiation – the type that can damage cells – is a daily fact of life even for people who never go to the doctor. Rocks and soil contain radioactive materials, which also appear in our food, our bones and the air we breathe. Cosmic rays barrage us with radiation from space, with higher doses at altitude and on airplanes.
Overall, a person in the United States gets an annual average of about 3 millisieverts (mSv) of background radiation. (Millisieverts are units that measure radiation absorbed by our bodies.)
Added exposure, totaling another 3 mSV each year for the average American, comes from such man-made sources as power plants that run on coal and nuclear fuel, and consumer products including TVs and computer screens. But most of the extra radiation we get comes from X-rays and CT scans, Ritenour says.
Most routine diagnostic tests emit extremely small amounts of radiation. A patient will get about 0.001 mSv from an arm X-ray, 0.01 mSv from a from a panoramic dental X-ray, 0.1 mSv from a chest X-ray and 0.4 mSv from a mammogram, according to Harvard Medical School. (Those estimates vary somewhat, depending on the source and on the specific device used, the size of the patient and other factors.)
CT scans, which take multiple X-rays to create cross-sectional images, deliver higher doses: 7 mSv for a chest CT, and 12 mSV for a full-body scan, according to the National Cancer Institute. Studies have found doses of 25 mSv or more from a PET/CT, an imaging test that requires ingesting a radioactive substance.
With the increasing availability and affordability of imaging technologies, people are getting more tests than they used to. Today, Americans receive more than 85 million CT scans each year, compared with 3 million per year in the 1980s.
Many of those tests may be excessive, argue some researchers, who have been trying to quantify the risks of our increasing use of ionizing radiation in medical imaging. A 2009 study by scientists at the National Cancer Institute estimated that 2 percent – or about 29,000 – of the 1.7 million cancers diagnosed in the United States in 2007 were caused by CT scans. In a 2004 study, researchers estimated that a 45-year-old who planned to get 30 annual full-body CT exams would have a nearly 2 percent lifetime risk of dying of cancer. Other studies are underway to clarify risks, including in children.
But evaluating an individual’s chances of experiencing a bad outcome from any given test or a combination of tests is tricky. Some of the most definitive data on radiation’s health effects come from long-term studies of tens of thousands of people who survived the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Sudden exposure to 1,000 mSv, those studies have found, increased the risk of getting cancer by 42 percent and increased the risk of dying of cancer by 5 percent.
Risks of secondary cancers also rise with the high doses of radiation used in some cancer treatment – a trade-off that often makes sense because doing nothing would be even riskier.
Evidence is murkier about health consequences from lower doses. The Food and Drug Administration estimates that 10 mSv of radiation, an amount typical for a CT of the abdomen, increases lifetime cancer risk by 1 in 2,000. But that calculation assumes that risks are proportional to dose, which has not been proved. Below 10 mSv, there is not enough good data to draw clear conclusions.
There is also no absolute number of scans that constitute a tipping point for health, Ritenour says, in part because our bodies have repair mechanisms that can fix cells damaged by radiation. So while every scan adds to the chances that a problem will occur, radiation doesn’t build up in the body. And damage doesn’t accumulate like water poured into a glass. Theoretically, he adds, 10 mammograms in one day would be riskier than one mammogram a year for 10 years.
“All you can really say is that there’s very little chance a problem can happen” at low doses, says Ritenour, who often consults with patients who have questions about radiation. “It is very unsatisfying in a way. You can’t say, ‘You will definitely have no problems.’ ”
Although health risks from most imaging tests are extremely small, fear can be hard for people to rationalize away. There is a one-in-a-million chance of getting cancer from a chest X-ray, Ritenour says, the same tiny chance of getting cancer from toxins in peanut butter.
Making decisions about diagnostic tests ultimately requires comparing their potential benefits with their potential harms. That balance can be easy to measure if someone has a broken leg or a bullet fragment lodged in their body. But decisions become more nuanced for tests such as mammograms, which catch breast cancers in some women but also produce false alarms that cause unnecessary anxiety and follow-up testing that entails even more radiation. Given the trade-offs, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force offers evidenced-based advice about many screening tests, and those guidelines can be helpful starting points for conversations with your doctor.
Online calculators can also offer food for thought. When I entered my location, estimated miles traveled by airplane and other information into a tool maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission , I learned that I absorb an estimated 318 millirems, or 3.18 mSv, of radiation each year. Each millirem, according to this government agency, equates to a 1.2-minute reduction in life span, the same accrued from eating 10 extra calories (assuming I’m overweight) or crossing the street three times. In other words, I am likely to die 4 1/2 hours sooner than I would if I could avoid radiation altogether.
While some researchers work to better understand and communicate the risks of radiation, others are refining technologies and procedures, adds Louis Wagner, a diagnostic medical physicist at McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. And the field has come a long way.
For example, after studies found an elevated risk of breast cancer among women who had received X-rays for childhood scoliosis, experts say, many health centers switched from taking images from the front of the body to taking images from behind to reduce the cancer risk.
Technicians have made mistakes, such as using higher doses of radiation than needed during scans, and some mistakes have led to expensive legal cases, Wagner says. But those cases are rare. And most machines are now equipped with safety features to avoid overexposure.
“The profession has sought to make use of radiation very, very beneficial to patients with minimal and, I believe, unrecognizable risks,” Wagner says. “I want patients to know the medical profession is avidly pursuing better ways to use radiation to increase the benefits-to-risks ratio. I think good progress is being made.”
Get ready for the next generation of wifi technology: Wi-fi 6 (for so it is named) is going to be appearing on devices from next year. But will you have to throw out your old router and get a new one? And is this going to make your Netflix run faster? Here’s everything you need to know about the new standard.
A brief history of wifi
Those of you of a certain age will remember when home internet access was very much wired—only one computer could get online, a single MP3 took half an hour to download, and you couldn’t use the landline phone at the same time.
Thank goodness for wifi technology then, which gradually became cheap and compact enough to fit inside a router suitable for home use. The first wifi protocol appeared in 1997, offering 2Mbit/s link speeds, but it was only with the arrival of 802.11b and 11Mbit/s speeds in 1999 that people seriously started thinking about home wifi.
Wifi standards, as well as a whole host of other electronics standards, are managed by the IEEE: The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Specifically, IEEE 802 refers to local area network standards, and 802.11 focuses on wireless LAN. In the 20 years since 802.11b arrived, we’ve seen numerous new standards pushed out, though not all of them apply to home networking kit.
The introduction of 802.11g in 2003 (54Mbit/s) and 802.11n in 2009 (a whopping 600Mbit/s) were both significant moments in the history of wifi. Another significant step forward was the introduction of dual-band routers with both 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands, tied to the arrival of 802.11n, which could offer faster speeds at shorter ranges.
Today, with 802.11ac in place, that 5GHz band can push speeds of 1,300Mbit/s, so we’re talking speeds that are more than 600 times faster than they were in 1997. Wi-Fi 6 takes that another step forward, but it’s not just speed that’s improving.
Explaining wifi technology can get quite technical. A lot of recent improvements, including those arriving with Wi-Fi 6, involve some clever engineering to squeeze more bandwidth out of the existing 2.4GHz and 5GHz your router already employs. The end result is more capacity on the same channels, with less interference between them, as well as faster data transfer speeds.
Turning wifi up to six
One of the most important changes Wi-Fi 6 brings with it is, of course, the new naming system: Using a simple succession of numbers is going to make it a lot easier for consumers to keep track of standards and make sure they’ve got compatible kit set up. The more technical term for Wi-Fi 6 is 802.11ax, if you prefer the old naming.
Older standards are getting retroactively renamed too—the 802.11ac standard becomes Wi-Fi 5, the 802.11n standard becomes Wifi 4, and so on. Expect to see the new Wi-Fi 6 name on hardware products and inside software menus from 2019, as well as funky little logos not unlike the one Google uses for its Chromecast devices.
As always, the improvements with this latest generation of wifi are in two key areas: Raw speed and throughput (if wifi was a highway, we’d be talking about a higher maximum speed limit for vehicles, as well as more lanes to handle more vehicles at once). Wi-Fi 6 will support 8K video streaming, provided your internet supplier is going to give you access to sufficient download speeds in the first place.
In practice that means support for transfer rates of 1.1Gbit/s over the 2.4GHz band (with four streams available) and 4.8Gbit/s over the 5GHz band (with eight streams available), though the technology is still being refined ahead of its full launch next year—those speeds may, in fact, go up (it’s been hitting 10Gbit/s in the lab). Roughly speaking, you can look forward to 4x to 10x speed increases in your wifi.
Another improvement Wi-Fi 6 will bring is improved efficiency, which means a lower power draw, which means less of a strain on battery life (or lower figures on your electricity bill). It’s hard to quantify the difference exactly, especially as Wi-Fi 6 has yet to be finalized, but it’s another step in the right direction for wifi standards—it shouldn’t suck the life out of your phone or always-on laptopquite as quickly.
Refinements in Wi-Fi 6 hardware and firmware should also mean better performance in crowded environments. You might finally be able to get a strong signal at your sports bar of choice, though don’t hold your breath. As always, a host of other factors (walls, microwaves, the number of people streaming Netflix in your house) are going to have an impact on the final speeds you see.
What will you have to do?
Not a lot. As is usually the case, Wi-Fi 6 is going to be backwards compatible with all the existing wifi gear out there, so if you bring something home from the gadget shop that supports the new standard, it will work fine with your current setup—you just won’t be able to get the fastest speeds until everything is Wi-Fi 6 enabled.
It’s such a cliché to talk about the weather, but when you’re covering a month of fashion shows—widely considered plush, leisurely events, but ones that actually require a lot of time outdoors and on your feet—temperatures and precipitation make a big difference. In Paris, the air was crisp, the sun was shining, and we saw some of the week’s best looks. Some women we know packed entire suitcases of romantic, voluminous floral dresses, which make an easy, effortless impact; others showed up in retina-searing neons, the direct result of a single Fall 2018 show; and many women seemed to reject the idea of trends altogether, sticking to a mix of elegant, everyday button-downs, jackets, and trousers. Below, we’ve distilled the month of street style photos—828, to be precise—down to the seven most important trends.
Hemlines Keep Rising (and Rising . . .)
Back in the ’60s, miniskirts were a symbol of rebellion, of sexual freedom, and of youth in general. They’re creeping back into the zeitgeist—both on the runway and on the streets—partially in response to the modest midi and maxi lengths we’ve been wearing for years, but perhaps also because women of 2018 are embracing the bold, anti establishment spirit of ’60s women. On the runway, hemlines rose at Louis Vuitton, Chanel, and Stella McCartney; on the street, we saw minis in all manner of prints, patent leather, denim, and suede.
Back to Black
There are no real “rules” of street style, but over the past few years, it’s been a commonly held belief that wearing black won’t get you noticed. The competition for a photographer’s attention is fierce—you need color! Glitter! Prints! Things changed drastically this season: Not only did we see droves of women (and men) in head-to-toe black, but they wore it in uniquely interesting, un-minimal ways. Tulle frocks, leather harnesses, asymmetrical LBDs, and furry accessories were plenty eye-catching in stark black, perhaps even more so than if they’d been in a predictably bright color.
Some are calling it escapism, others say it’s all a numbers game, but the groovy prints and hippieish chill of the late ’60s and ’70s were all over the Spring 2019 runways (Etro, Paco Rabanne, and even Dior), a trend we saw immediately reflected on the streets. It doesn’t get easier than a breezy, billowy caftan and leather sandals—but if you’re really leaning in, you’ll layer on a tangle of beaded necklaces, too. There’s a sense of naivety to that “Summer of Love” look, which turned 50 last year; maybe that’s why it’s coming back around. Vogue’s Sarah Mower drew a brilliant line between these boho-chic vibes and our current obsession with wellness and self-care in her Etro review: “The modern ideal of a sound mind in a superhot athletic body, clad in an accidentally pretty print dress.”
The Prada Effect
The retina-searing neon dresses, vests, and handbags filling Prada’s shop windows have become something of a beacon. Passersby are scratching their heads, and they aren’t alone; anyone remotely familiar with Miuccia Prada’s work might be struck by the futuristic, embellishment-free unnaturalness of it all. Fashion obsessives, of course, took Prada’s blinding Fall 2018 show as a cue to dive headfirst into the neon trend: Kelela and Sasha Lane both turned up in supercharged lime knits, Aleali May wore a cobalt fur with acid-green boots, and we saw dozens of guys and girls pledging allegiance to Prada in head-to-toe Fall looks in highlighter pink and traffic cone orange. Prada has always played a part in influencing trends, but a word to the wise: Spring 2019 only had a few touches of citron, lime, and bright peach, so if you’re into supercharged, nearly glowing neon, now’s the time to wear it.
You probably already know that listening to music no longer requires trips to a music store, or purchasing individual songs or albums from iTunes to download to your computer. Today’s best music streaming services have millions of songs in their catalogs, offer personalized playlists, and feature exclusive internet radio shows and podcasts. But which should you pick and pay a subscription fee for?
A good streaming music service has a straightforward user interface that makes it easy to organize a library of thousands of songs or playlists across the web, Android, and iOS apps, and in some cases, a desktop Mac or Windows app. However, while most music streaming services have these features, most of them aren’t free, and nearly all services require paid plans that grant you access to a full on-demand library of music and other features.
While testing these music streaming services, I considered factors like audio quality options, social integration, and built-in lyrics. It’s also absolutely necessary that your streaming app plays nice with more than one personal device. These are all important points when considering which music service to pick and ultimately, make for a better listening experience.
Spotify is the best streaming music service for a variety of reasons, but there’s one in particular that stands out. It has the most consistent iOS, Android, Mac, and Windows experience. It’s far from perfect, of course, but features rolled out to the iOS version follow on Android not too soon after. Competing music services sometimes have issues with certain platforms, like the clunky Android version of Apple Music or the Windows app for Tidal that sometimes won’t load.
Other than having a unified app experience, Spotify has a large catalog of music (35+ million songs), the best playlist recommendations, useful, yet non-intrusive social features, and a variety of plans (including student discounts) that make it great for most music listeners with a smartphone and some headphones.
It’s also one of the streaming services (alongside Amazon Music and Apple Music) that supports offline listening for both mobile and desktop, which is useful when you’re doing work and don’t want to eat up bandwidth or using your device on a plane without internet. Spotify is also supported by most smart speakers and smart devices, so it’s almost universally available on all platforms.
However, Spotify isn’t without shortcomings. There’s no hi-fi option, the app can misbehave when you have a poor cell connection, and uploading purchased songs to your desktop Spotify library is a convoluted process. Still, Spotify’s mobile and desktop experiences are fast and easy to understand. Spotify’s pricing also set the precedent for other music streaming apps. It has a compelling free option on desktop, a $4.99 option for students (US only), the standard $9.99 premium option that lets you download and stream on all your personal devices, and finally, a $14.99 family plan (for six users total).
A GREAT ALTERNATIVE: APPLE MUSIC
Apple Music has a lot going for it that’s pegged on exclusivity. Beats 1 is home to many top-tier artists that use their respective radio shows to demo and tease new music and collaborations. If you’re a fan of certain popular artists, you might find that the first chance you’ll have to hear their new music is on Apple Music, not Spotify or Tidal. Sound quality is usually better than Spotify’s, thanks to Apple Music using a 256kbps AAC bitrate, compared to the max 320kbps Ogg Vorbis bitrate used by Spotify.
Banking on this sense of access and being “in the know,” Apple Music tops this off with artist’s music videos, adding a visual treat you can enjoy without having to go to another app. However for comparison, Tidal, YouTube Music, and Spotify are the other streaming services that offer music videos built into the app. Of those, only Spotify has short vertical videos for a few of its popular songs; Apple Music does not.
Apple Music also has a digital locker feature that subscribers can take advantage of, to the tune of 100,000 songs. Although, you should be hard-pressed not to find your purchased music in Apple Music’s library of over 50 million songs. You can also save these songs for offline listening on iOS, Android, Mac, Windows, and the Apple Watch.
The iOS, Android, and desktop apps are my least favorite user music streaming interfaces. The abundant use of hot pink accents and white backgrounds everywhere isn’t the most comfortable to view at night. On Android, the Apple Music app feels even more out of place and occasionally had problems staying open on my Pixel 2 XL. Using Apple Music on a desktop requires you to use iTunes, an app that’s slow, cumbersome, confusing, and long overdue for a redesign. Apple Music has definitely not been blessed with the most beautiful interfaces the designers at Cupertino have released.
Apple Music’s pricing is similar to Spotify and other services: $9.99 monthly or $14.99 for a family plan (up to six users), with student discounts varying by country.
If you’re an audiophile — someone who is enthusiastic about hi-fi reproduction — and want to use a streaming service, there are some good alternatives.
For those that have audio hardware capable of taking advantage of lossless hi-fi, then Tidal or Deezer’s $20 lossless plans might be good options. Tidal has a $9.99 on-demand plan as well, but it doesn’t get you the higher sound quality.
On the flip side, casual listeners who want a more radio-style streaming service can opt for the $5 radio-only, no ads version of Pandora; it also includes on-demand streaming, but it’s less mature than its competitors in terms of playlist recommendations and library management.
But what if you have thousands of songs you’ve already purchased the old-fashioned way? If you want the benefits of uploading your music to the cloud and a music streaming service to back that up — that is more consistent on Android and the web — then Google Play Music is the perfect option. However, next year Google is merging YouTube Music with Play Music into a new service with a music uploading feature, so it might be worth waiting.