Blindspotting Official Trailer #1 (2018) Daveed Diggs Drama Movie HD

 

  • 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.

 

How Men Can Last Longer During Sex

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.

READ MORE: https://lifehacker.com/how-men-can-last-longer-during-sex-1829473619

The beginner’s guide to technology in 2018: All of the essential gadgets and services actually worth your money

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

phone

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.

READ MORE: https://www.businessinsider.com/technology-beginners-guide-essential-gadgets-services-2018-10#a-streaming-device-for-your-tv-2

Mammograms, CT scans, X-rays: Assessing the risk of all that radiation

hands

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.”