I generally download from https://rutracker.org/ (need an account to search not for downloading). They have pretty much everything that you can imagine (not just films) and in proper quality too (BD Remuxes etc). There will be no scene releases here because they add russian/ukrainian dubs and subs to almost all films but that's a small problem.
The other one is Heartive which lists torrents from the DHT network with Magnet links https://heartiveloves.pages.dev/ You just click on the torrent icon in the middle top of the selected film and all the available releases will be listed in plain text. The only downside that you need to be familiar with the release tags
Last but not least https://nyaa.si/ if you have a slight interest in anything japanese from manga to anime to much more
I just use ye old faithful of piratebay, through the tor browser so my ISP doesn't do shenanigans to it, then ffmpeg to get only the streams I care about (video, english audio / japanese audio + english subtitles) and reencode it to h264 mp4 so the files aren't gigantic and are compatible with everything. A bit old-school maybe but it generally works fine for me.
I live in the UK so I'll also sometimes pull stuff from iPlayer, which yt-dlp works perfectly for, and also off youtube
Can you please reconsider using TOR for piracy? It strains the Tor Network and makes life harder for exit node providers. The Tor Project has advised against it as well[0]. There are many cheap VPN Providers that allow port forwarding and will give you an even better torrenting experience.
Using the Tor-Browser to get the links on ThePirateBay et. al. is of course fine, torrenting the content though is where it becomes a problem.
I don't torrent through tor, I just use it to get the links. I've found that if I use TPB on the normal internet, my ISP (or someone who can see my connections) seems to be poisoning the results, since all my torrents result in a 1.89gb executable file that I'm sure as hell not opening. Getting the links through tor doesn't have the same issue, and then I download them over the normal internet, and everything works fine
Add me to the list of people curious about this. It feels more like some sort of bug than a real attack, it would be odd to use such a huge file for every torrent.
Sure, but this way I know what I'm getting, rather than just hoping I get the right thing. I don't mind doing a little bit of cleanup to make sure I'm getting what I want
And if you don't want to torrent at all, there are recent tools (nzbdav) to build a large *arr library that streams directly from usenet, without need for self-storage
I highly recommend setting up a kodi combo: real-debrid/fen/seren/coco scrapers/tmdb helper with your trakt account/arctic fuse 2 (netflix like skin). It is a complete "stream everything" netflix interface.
It takes quite a while to understand how to set everything up and needs tons of customization (which is also a positive), but reddit is your friend. For example this is a good guide (although bit dated, some info may be older but generally it still fits https://www.reddit.com/r/Addons4Kodi/comments/zzfdtb/allincl... )
I know people also use *arr stack and jellyfin to setup their own library but my problem is that i never /know/ what to watch. With this setup, i just turn it on, get to browse customized/recommended and random lists like in netflix and it streams directly via real-debrid or premiumize
Oh; if you decide to have a dedicated raspberry pi for this thing (so you can use it with tv easilly), use a regular raspbian os or something, do NOT use libreelec. It is trying to be heavily customized, but in the end is just worse, buggy, bad wifi support, slow releases from small team, and unability to manually update packages
> I know people also use *arr stack and jellyfin to setup their own library but my problem is that i never /know/ what to watch.
For people like me, knowing what to watch is never a problem. Getting time to actually watch it is.
I suggest finding a way to do your own curation.
For movies, you could just start with the IMDB Top 250 (pick at random). They used to have other lists (e.g. top non-English movies, etc), but I can't seem to find them any more.
for public torrents, skip the trackers and just run a DHT crawler like bitmagnet. it'll take a month to "catch up", but after that you'll have more indexed content than any individual tracker & it'll be way snappier.
American/California confuses my tiny English brain
>be freedom-loving capitalist America
>be freedom-loving state of California and electrical engineering centre of the world
>the government tells utility companies exactly how much yield they can make
>down to a tenth of a percent
>don’t worry bro this is about protecting_customers
>the yield is on infrastructure and is extremely non-cyclical and effectively backstopped by the state of California. It’s a 30y investment at a time when 30y t bills are at ~5%
>sets the yield at 10.3%
Actually pretty cool - I was about to comment “nice perpetual motion machine” but looked into a bit more and it’s much more interesting than that (well, a real perpetual motion machine would be interesting but…)
This kind of stuff could trigger the next revolution in computing, as the theoretical energy consumption of computing is pretty insignificant. Imagine if we could make computers with near-zero energy dissipation! A "solid 3D" computer would then become possible, and Moore's law may keep going until we exhaust the new dimension ;)
In subjects where you never had to put your credibility where your mouth is - the data says whatever you’d like it to say.
Not to butcher Karl Popper early on Monday morning, but a very good guideline for whether a subject area is scientific is if the prediction it makes are falsifiable. If I propose a theory then I should be able to tell you which test result(s) would prove theory wrong.(I know there are critiques of Popper and falsifiability so I’m not presenting it as the be-all-and-end-all of scientific-ness, just a useful yard stick.)
The problem with that heuristic is more basic than Popperian philosophy. It's that researchers are happy to present falsifiable claims that are in fact then later falsified, but the falsifications don't get published by journals or advertised by the press, and university employers don't care that their employees are making false claims.
Something very strange is going on in this case. Reading between the lines, there’s someone specific (forgive the cliche but, perchance, an ex wife) who either is being intentionally and subtly threatened, or feels that way.
The article is just missing some really obvious key points - what was written in the LinkedIn post? Whose house was in the image?
The headline is written for maximum clicks in the US advertising market. If an ex husband is posting pictures of his ex wife’s house and cryptic threatening messages on LinkedIn (not saying he was, but if he was) that’s a very different story from “man is arrested for photo with gun”.
On the other hand, the police in my beloved country (including the WYP) never cease in their hard work to make mistakes in some new unfathomable way. So it’s entirely possible that this story is just exactly what it seems on first inspection.
As far as I’ve been able to gather, the image of the house was posted BY SOMEONE ELSE. The image of the firearm was posted from a country where firearms are legal. There was no threatening language in his post of the firearm. All charges were ultimately dropped (though he was arrested and spent time in jail over the post)
The thing you fail to understand is how afraid of guns British people can be.
There was an article a few years ago about a British man, ex army. The story goes someone threw a bag of shotguns over his fence. He found them. Brought them inside for safekeeping overnight, brought them to the police station first thing in the morning. Arrested and charged for possession.
As far as I can tell he posted a picture containing a gun. This scared someone who reported it. The police arrested him. No further evidence of a crime was found and he was not charged.
Nothing against the BBC but the most thoughtful journalist has all the scientific knowledge of Tarot Reader’s cat.
Anyway, n=56 which is fine I guess but leaves loads of margin for error.
Personally, I had a cystoscope and at the time had fancy health insurance so went to a bling London hospital and the surgeon insisted I listened to music - saying exactly what this article said. It lowers cortisol after, makes you less restless during and improves patient reported outcomes.
You can look up what a cystoscope is, I elected to do it with a blocker rather than with a general anaesthetic. All I will say is that track Shadowboxin’ by GLA is now completely unlistenable for me!
I’m sure the individual writer is smart educated and thoughtful, but the system of science journalism (science communication is different but equally flawed) is so bent-out-of-shape as to be effectively worthless.
Like, take this exact article as a great example. I’m sure Mr Biswas is genuinely very intelligent and thoughtful and a great journalist but having him write a science article is unfair on him and on readers.
Doesn’t even have an undergraduate in a science subject, has never worked as a scientist, and his job is as a national correspondent.
Perhaps my wording prioritised humour over fairness - I’ll take the criticism on that. But I don’t think my core point was wrong. How can you “communicate” something you yourself don’t understand?
Finally, I want to stress again - it’s not his fault. The system is broken.
The core issue is that the BBC report inflates what the study actually shows. The paper is a small, single-centre RCT of one specific surgery (laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Its primary outcome is a modest reduction in propofol and fentanyl dose under a very specific anaesthetic protocol. It does not demonstrate broadly faster recovery or an across-the-board clinical benefit. The authors themselves are cautious and explicitly list limitations.
The article strips out that narrow context and generalises. Phrases like “music eases surgery and speeds recovery” and “strongest evidence yet” extrapolate from a sample of 56 people undergoing one procedure to “surgery” in general. The paper doesn’t measure global recovery outcomes, discharge times, or longer-term effects. Satisfaction and pain scores are even reported as comparable between groups (P=0.361 and P=0.07).
There’s also mechanistic speculation in the article (implicit memory, psychological responses, “humanising the operating room”) that isn’t in the study’s data. The paper reports dose differences and perioperative physiological measures—not neuropsychological mechanisms.
> Its primary outcome is a modest reduction in propofol and fentanyl dose under a very specific anaesthetic protocol.
Ooh, that sounds like p-hacking. How many other protocols, and other potential outcomes in general, did they look at before picking the one to publish? If it's on the order of 20, then we can expect they'd encounter such a result by pure chance.
The headlines says that music “speeds recovery” but the paper specifically says that patients had similar recovery profiles.
The media article overall overstates the findings of the study. It’s a very specific study on a specific cohort and a specific surgery (minimally invasion) but the article implies strongly that music helps with all surgery.
Also the paper specifically doesn’t touch on medial outcomes from the music - that’s fine as science since it’s granular, but it’s a pretty big thing to miss in the article.
The article misses a bunch of further questions that need more research. How does the patient playing music affect the surgeon? Is it music in general or specific music that helps? Is the patient choosing the music relevant?
“Reshape how hospitals think about surgery”? Not really, hospitals already use music in surgery so it’s not going to “reshape” anything. Over dramatisation.
It’s also just very shallow. Makes no mention of existing science/practice for example. Didn’t speak to any other researchers.
Look, the article is fine-ish but it’s just a regurgitation of the paper with more dramatisation and no analysis. Just post the paper especially on HN.
Good points - that's why I follow & support https://theconversation.com/ for news since it's Science Journalism is done by actual scientists working in the field.
I kind of understand where they come from: science vulgarization in pop news has been riddled with misinterpretation or lack of depth which can mislead the general public.
I’m not gonna delete it as it’s just going to make comments like yours confusing for people, but that was poor phrasing from me.
It gave the impression that this specific journalist knows nothing, which is unfair.
I was trying to be funny (always risky online) and intended to be speaking humorously about science journalism in generally. In hindsight, my phrasing doesn’t do that, and actually doesn’t communicate what I was saying very well.
I stand by my criticism of science journalism in general and my request that the article is just posted. But my wording was very rough, ultimately didn’t make the point I intended and yes might frustrate some people. If someone is extremely upset or hurt by my comment then, I think, at some stage that isn’t my fault and the Internet might not be right for that person.
Oof, this comment was really nice up until the end. Accepting responsibility, expressing regret, etc.
> If someone is extremely upset or hurt by my comment then, I think, at some stage that isn’t my fault and the Internet might not be right for that person.
But then you're like "If you're upset, whatever, that's on you" - even though nobody's really suggested someone is "extremely" upset or hurt by your comment.
Also, you can be funny on the Internet - it has nothing to do with that. The real question is whether you can be funny without degrading people.
I’m just saying that I draw the line somewhere with how upset someone is. Like, if someone read my comment and thought it was unfair then I agree with them. If someone read it and was deeply hurt by it - that’s really in their court not mine.
If we were all following the guidelines here, then this little meta discussion about journalistic interpretation would have never even happened. We'd be discussing the topic, instead of the reporting of that topic.
> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.
n=56 doesn't give you much information regarding the margin of error, unless you practice Tarot Reader's cat science. The standard deviation of outcomes and the difference between both outcomes matter just as much.
If I flip a coin 56 times and it always falls on head, I can be pretty much certain that it's not a fair coin. I wouldn't need to flip it 1000 times. We are all someone else's "know-nothing hack"...
I also had cystoscope and the nurses suggested music - in addition to the pain killer. So yeah, I would say peaceful music helped me, but not as a replacement to a painkiller.
I worked in the City (Citie) of London and have off and on taken an interest in the history.
Much of the special status of London was granted before 1189, and it retains its special because of time immemorial concept and English common law.
I won’t bore you with all the details but there’s loads of weird stuff like a mayor that only lasts a year, companies get the vote based on number of employees, separate police for from the rest of London etc etc. That’s barely scratching the surface.
Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”. Of course, when push comes to shove they find a way but that rarely happens.
> companies get the vote based on number of employees
That is the result of recent legislation. Until about 20 years ago companies did not get votes. Individuals got votes by being freemen of the city, usually by being members of a livery company, the descendants of medieval guilds.
> Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”.
It can be changed by passing legislation.
I lived in the city (in the Barbican) in the early 2000s and loved it.
All businesses used to get votes in local elections in England and Wales (by virtue of being ratepayers) and boroughs/cities had separate Aldermen and (Common) Councilmen. The City of London (ie the square mile, not the metropolis) retained the old system when it was abolished elsewhere (in favour of only residents voting and a single type of councillor) because the number of residents in the City then was absolutely tiny by comparison to the number of people who use the City daily (after much of the residential population left, partly due to war damage during WW2).
What changed more recently was the allocation of which individual people get to exercise those votes - "business votes" became "workers votes".
The election of the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs is separate though. This is still done at Common Hall (and the franchise is still Liverymen), but that election is very very rarely contested.
I also worked (and indeed lived) in the City a few years and fell down this rabbit hole for a spell. The more you dig into this the weirder it gets, but it's quite a fun rabbit hole indeed. :o)
> Can’t easily be changed because some of the “rights and liberties” predates written common law and are “senior”. Of course, when push comes to shove they find a way but that rarely happens.
It could pretty easily be changed by an Act of Parliament, but there's no real political will to do so. It doesn't do any harm and makes for some interesting tidbits to impress tourists with.
Multiple articles in the archives of The Guardian tell about the influence and the special status of The City and how it undercuts British democracy.
And to go one step further, I've read the idea that Brexit was instigated to prevent The City from being regulated by Brussels. It's a theory that might fit the facts.
Cool idea and interesting that Grok is winning and has “bad” stats.
I wonder if Grok is exploiting Minstral and Meta who vpip too much and the don’t c-bet. Seems to win a lot of showdowns and folds to a lot of three bets. Punishes the nits because it’s able to get away from bad hands.
Goes to showdown very little so not showing its hands much - winning smaller pots earlier on.
The results/numbers aren't interesting because the number of samples is woefully insufficient to draw any conclusions beyond "that's a nice looking dashboard" or maybe "this is a cool idea"
You right, results and numbers are mainly for entertainment purposes. This sample size would allow to analyze main reasoning failure modes and how often they occur.
reply